b~ c~.. ~7~ A - i lllm On Becoming a Person A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy Carl R. Rogers, Ph.D. ( Western Behavioral Sciences Institute La ]olla, California P&CULIDJDE HouGHTON ~IvIFBSIItAI~ DE fltO$OrlA. MIFFLIN IPf sAIl CI[NCIAS PAIKII E [.[TI~&S COMPANY.BOSTON b2C Copyright © 1961 by Carl IL Rogers All rights reserved including the right to reproduce this book or parts tbereo~ in any ior~n. " ¯ 01 Priu~d in the U. S. A. Contents Introduction To the Reader vfi PART I SPr.AK~GPm~SONM.LY Chapter 1 "This is Me" 3 PART II How CAN I B~ oF HELP? Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 SomeHypotheses Regarding the Facilitation of / Personal Growth 31 " The Characteristics of a Helping Relationship 39 WhatWeKnowAbout Psychotherapy--Objectively and Subjectively 59 PART m , TH~ PRocms or BECOMINGa PF.RSON Chapter Y Chapter Chapter 7 Someof the Directions Evident in Therapy WhatIt Meansto Becomea Person A Process Conception of Psychotherapy 73 107 125 C.ox-’rm¢~ PART IV A PHILOSOPHY OFPERSONS "To Be That Self WhichOne Truly Is": A Therapist’s Viewof Personal Goals 163 A Therapist’s View of the GoodI~e: The J Fully Functioning Person 183 PART V GEl"rinG AT THE FACTS: ThEPLACE o~ RESr~CH m PsYcao’m~ Chapter 10 Chapter 11 Chapter 12 Persons or Science? A Philosophical Question 199 Personality Changein Psychotherapy 225 Client-Centerec] Therapy in its Context of Re- search ~ 243 PART VI WHAT ARg T~IE IMPLIO~TIONS Chapter 13 Chapter 14 Cbapter lS Chapter 16 Chapter 17 Chapter 1// Chapter 19 YOR L~Q? Personal Thoughtson Teaching and Learning 273 Signlficantcation Learning: In Therapy and in Edu- 279 Student-Centered Teaching as Experienced by a Participant 297 The Implications of Client-centered Therapy for Family Life 314 Dealing with Breakdownsin Communication --Interpersonal and Intergroup 329 A Tentative Formulation of a General Lawof Interpersonal Relationships 338 Toward a Theory of Creativity 347 ¯ Co~ PART VII THEB~AVma~L SconCESAND~ lh~o~ Chapter 20 The GrowingPowerof the Behavioral Sciences 363 Chapter 21 The Place of the Individual in the NewWorld 384 of the Behavioral Sciences A Chronological Bibliography of the publications of Carl R. Rogers. 1930-1960. Acknowledgments Index Appendix 403 413 415 To the Reader THOUGH IT SHOCKS MESOMEWHAT TOSAYS0, I have been a psychotherapist (or personal counselor) for morethan thirtT-three )’cars. This meansthat during a period of a third of a century I have been trying to be of help to a broad sampling of our population: to children, adolescents and adults; to those with educational, vocational, personal and marital problems; to "normal," "neurotic," and "psychotic" individuals (the quotes indicate that for me these are all misleading labels); to individuals whocomefor help, and those who are sent for help; to those whose problems are minor, and to those whose lives have becomeutterly desperate and without hope. I regard it as a deep privilege to have had the opportunity to know such a diverse multitude of people so personally and intimately. Out of the clinical experience and research of these years I have written several books and manyarticles. The papers in this volume are selected from those I have written during the most recent ten of the thirty-three years, from 1951 to 196l. I would like to explain the reasons that I have for gathering them into a book. In the first place I believe that almost all of them have relevance for personal living in this perplcxlng modernworld. This is in no sense a book of advice, nor does it in any way rcsemhle the "doit-yourself" treatise, but it has been myexperience that readers of these papers have often found them challenging and enriching. They have to somesmall degree given the person more security in making and fo]Iowing hLs personal choices as he endc;lvors to movetoward being the person he would like to he. So for this reason I should like to have them more widely available to an)" viii To Tax Recta who might be interested--:to "the intelligent layman," as the phrase goes. I feel this especially since aLl of my previous books have been published for the professional psychological audience, and have never been readily available to the person outside of that group. It is mysincere hope that manypeople whohave no particular interest in the field of counseling or psychotherapy will find that the learnings emergingin this field will strengthen them in their ownliving. It is also myhope and belief that manypeople who have never sought counseling help will find, as they read the excerpts from the recorded therapy interviews of the manyclients in these pages, that they are subtly enriched in courage and self confidence, and that understanding of their own difficulties will becomeeasier as they live through, in their imagination and feeling, the struggles of others toward growth. Another influence which has caused me to prepare this book is the increasing numberand urgency of requests from those who are already acquainted with my point of view in counseling, psychotherapy,, and interpersonal rehtionshipg They have madeit known that they wish to be able to obtain accounts of mymore recent thinking and work in a convenient and available package. They are frustrated by hearing of unpublished articles which they cannot acquire; by stumbling across papers of mine in out-of-the-way iournals; they want them brought together. This is a flattering request for any author. It also constitutes an obligation which I have tried to fulfiLL I hope that they will be pleased with the selection I have made. Thus in this respect this volumeis for those psychologists, psychiatrists, teachers, educators, school counselors, religious workers, social workers, speech therapists, industrial leaders, labormanagementspecialists, political scientists and others who have in the past found my work relevant to their professional efforts. In a very real sense, it is dedicated to them. There is another motive which has impelled me, a more complex and personal one. This is the search for a suitable audience for what I have to say. For more than a decade this problem has puzzled me. I knowthat I speak to only a fraction of psychologists. The majority--their interests suggested by such terms as stimulus-response, learning theory, operant conditioning--are so committedto To T~ READER ix seeing the individual solely as an object, that what I have to say often baffles ff it does not annoythem. I also knowthat I speak to but a fraction of psychiatrists. For many, perhaps most of them, the truth about psychotherapy has already been voiced long ago by Freud, and they are uninterested in new possibilities, and uninterested in or antagonistic to research in this field. I also know that I speak to but a portion of the divergent group which call themselves counselors. The bulk of this group are primarily interested in predictive tests and measurements, and in methodsof guidance. So whenit comesto the publication of a particular paper, I have felt dissatisfied with presenting it to a professional journal in any one of these fields. I have published articles in journals of each of these types, but the majority of my writings in recent years have piled up as unpublished manuscripts, distributed privately in mimeographed form. They symbolize my uncertainty as to howto reach whatever audience it is I am addressing. During this period journal editors, often of small or highly specialized journals, have learned of some of these papers, and have requested permission to publish. I have always acceded to these requests, with the proviso that I might wish to publish the paper elsewhere at some later time. Thus the majority of the papers I have written during this decade have been unpublished, or have seen the light of day in some small, or specialized, or off-beat journal. Nowhowever I have concluded that I wish to put these thoughts out in book form so that they can seek their ownaudience. I am sure that that audience will cut across a variety of disciplines, some of them as far removedfrom my ownfield as philosophy and the science of government. Yet I have cometo believe that the audience will have a certain unit3", too. I believe these papers belong in a trend which is having and will have its impact on psychology, psychiatry, philosophy, and other fields. I hesitate to label such a trend but in my mindthere are associated with it adjectives such as phenomenological, existential, person-centered; conccpts such as self-actnalization, becoming, growth; individuals (in this country) such as GordonAllport, AbrahamMaslow,Roll() May. Hence, though the group to which this book speaks mcaningfnlly will, I believe, come from many disciplines, and have many ~idc-ran~ing gb To ~ R~mn interests, a common thread maywell be their concern about the person and his becoming, in a modern world which appears intent upon ignoring or diminishing him. There is one final reason for putting out this book, a motive which means a great deal to me. It has to do with the great, in fact the desperate, need of our times for more basic knowledgeand more competent skills in dealing with the tensions in humanrelationships. Man’s awesomescientific advances into the infinitude of space as well as the infinitude of sub-atomic particles seems most likely to lead to the total destruction of our world unless we can makegreat advances in understanding and dealing with interpersonal and intergroup tensions. I feel very humbleabout the modest knowledge which has been gained in this field. I hope for the day when we will invest at least the price of one or two large rockets in the search for moreadequate understanding of humanrelationships. But I also feel keenly concerned that the knowiedge we bare gained is very little recognized and little utilized. I hope it may be clear from this volumethat we already possess learnings which, put to use, would help to decrease the inter-racial, industrial, and international tensions which exist. I hope it will be evident that these learnings, used preventively, could aid in the development of mature, nondefens/ve, understanding persons who would deal constructively with future tensions as they arise. If I can thus makedear to a significant number of people the unused resource knowledgealready available in the realm of interpersonal relationships, I wiU feel greatly rewarded. So muchfor myreasons for putting forth this book. Let me conclude with a few commentsas to its nature. The papers which are brought together here represent the major areas of my interest during the past decade." They were prepared for different pUrposes, nsually for different audiences, or formulated simply for my own satisfaction. I have written for each chapter an introductory * The one partial exception is in the area of explicit theor~ of personality. Having iusc recentiv published a complete and technical presentation of my theories in a book which should be available in any professional library, I have not tried to include such material here. The reference referred to is my chapter entitled, "A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships as developed in the client-centered framework"in Koch, S. (ed.) Psychology: A Study o~ a 5ciencej voL III, pp. 184-256. McGraw-Hill11959. To TIlE READER Y~ note which tries to set the material in an understandable context. I have organized the papers in such a way that they portray a united and developing tbeme from the highly personal to the larger ~,ocial significance. In editing them, I have ellminatcd duplication, but where different papers present the same concept in different ways I have often retained these "variations on a theme" hoping that they might serve the same purpose as in music, namelyto enricb the meaningof the melody,. Because of their origin as separate papers, each one can be read independently of the others if the reader so desires. Stated in the simplest way, the purpose of this book is to share with you something of mv experience--something of me. Here is what I have experienced in the jungles of modern life, in the largely unmappedterritory of personal relationships. Here is what I have seen. Here is what I have cometo believe. Here are the ways I have tried to check and test my’ beliefs. Here are some of the perplexities, questions, concerns and uncertainties which I face. I hope that out of this sharing you mayfind something which speaks to you. Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry The University o~ Wisconsin April, 1961 PART I Speaking Personally I speak as a person, from a context of personal experience and personal learnings. I "This is Me" The Development of MyProfessional Thinking and Personal Philosophy Twis chapter combinestwo very personal talks. Five years ago I as asked to speak to the senior class at Brandeis Uni~’ersity to present, not nty ideas of psychotherapy, but myself. Ho~, had I come to think the tboltghts 1 bad? Howbad I come to he the person I avn? I forend tbis a very tbougbt-provoking invitation, and 1 endeavored to meet the request of these students. During tbis past year the Student Union ForumConnnittee at Wisconsin madea soT~zcz:’bat similar request. They asked me to speak in a personal vein on their "Last Lecture" series, in ~zbieb it is as~mled that, for reasons unspecified, the professor is gi’,’ing his last lecture and therefore giz’ing quite personally of himself. (It is an i~itri~uing connncot on our educational systeyn that it is assumed that only nnder the n~ost dire circuTnstances would a professor re’,,eal b#uset( in any personal -~.ly. In this Wisconsin talk 1 expressed more fully th,rn in the first one the personal lea~lings or philosophical themes which haz’c conic to h.::’c ~zeaTzing for me. In the current chapter I ha~’e zt’ovcn tocctt.’cr l. ,tb of these talks, trying to retain soluething of the infor;’nal cha~.wtcr ~,hich they had in their initial prescnt,~tion. The response to each of these talks has ;’nade ;,tie realize ho~’ hun3 gry people are to kno~o something o~ ttoe person ~bo is speaking to them or teaching t/ecru. Consequently I bare set this ¢bapter first in the book in the hope that it ~;ill convey something o~ me, and tbo~ give more context and meaning to the chapters ~bicb ~ollo~o. I m~W what I am to. do speaking to ~zm~ this m~ov.wnm group is tothat assume that myexpected topic is "This ts inMe." I feel various reactions to such an invitation, but one that I would like to mention is that I feel honored and flattered that any group wants, in a personal sense, to knowwhoI am. I can assure you it is a unique and challenging sort of invitation, and I shall try to give to this honest question as honest an answer as I can. So, who am I? I am a psychologist whose primary interest, for manyyears, has been in psychotherapy. Whatdoes that mean?I don’t intend to bore you with a long account of mywork, but I would like to take a few paragraphs from the preface to my book, Client-Centered Therapy, to indicate in a subjective way what it means to me. I was trying to give the reader some feeling for the subject matter of the volume, and I wrote as follow~ "Whatis this book about? Let me try to give an answer which may, to some degree, convey the living experience that this book is intended to be. "This book is about the suffering and the hope, the anxiety and the satisfaction, with whicheach therapist’s counseling roomis filled. It is about the uniqueness of the relationship each therapist forms with each client, and equally about the commonelements which we discover in all these relationships. This book is about the highly personal experiences of each one of us. It is about a client in my office who sits there by the comer of the desk, struggling to be himself, yet deathly afraid of being himself-- striving to see his experience as it is, wanting to be that experience, and yet deeply fearful of the prospect. This book is about me, as I sit there with that client, facing him, participating in that struggle as deeply and sensitively as I amable. It is about me as I try to perceive his experience, and the "This is Me" $ meaning and the feeling and the taste and the flavor that it has for him. It is about me as I bemoan my very humanfallibility in understanding that client, and the occasional failures to see life as it appears to him, failures which fall like heavy objects across the intricate, delicate web of growth which is taking place. It is about me as I rejoice at the privilege of being a midwife to a new personality -as I stand by with awe at the emergenceof a self, a person, as I see a birth process in which I have had an important and facilitating part. It is about both the client and me as we regard with wonder the potent and orderly forces which are evident in this whole experience, forces which seem deeply rooted in the universe as a whole. The book is, I believe, about life, as life vividly reveals itself in the therapeutic process--with its blind power and its tremendous capacity for destruction, but with its overbalancing thrust toward growth, if the opportunity for growth is provided." Perhaps that will give you some picture of what I do and the way I feel about it. I presume you may also wonder how I came to engage in that occupation, and some of the decisions and choices, conscious and unconscious, which were madealong the way. Let me see if I can give you some of the psychological highlights of my autobiography, particularly as it seems to relate to my professional llfe. MY EARLY y~es I was brought up in a homemarked by close family ties, a very. strict and uncompromisingreligious and ethical atmosphere, and what amountedto a worship of the virtue of hard work. I came along as the fourth of six children. Myparents cared a great deal for us, and had our welfare almost constantly in mind. Theywere also, in manysubtle and affectionate ways, very controlling of our behavior. It was assumedby them and accepted by methat we were diffcrent from othcr people--no alcoholic beverages, no dancing, curds or thcater, very little social life, and ~’lmcb work. I have a hard time convincing my children that evcn carbonated beverages had a faintly sinful aroma, and I remembermy slight feeling of xvickediacss \vhcn I had my first bottle of "pop." XVchad gond times together within the family, but we did not mix. So 1 was a 6 ~INuPERSON~V pretty solitary boy, who read incessantly, and went all through high school with only two dates. WhenI was twelve myparents bought a farm and we madeour homethere. The reasons were twofold. Myfather, having become a prosperous business man, wanted it for a bobby. Moreimportant, I believe, was the fact that it seemedto my parents that a growing adolescent family should be removedfrom the "temptations" of suburban life. Here I developed two interests whieh have probably had some real bearing on my later work. I became fascinated by the great night-flying moths (Gene Stratton-Porter’s books were then in vogue) and I became an authority on the gorgeous Luna, Polyphernns, Ceeropia and other moths which inhabited our woods. I laboriously bred the moths in eaptivity, reared the caterpillars, kept the cocoons over the long winter months, and in general realized some of the joys and frustrations of the scientist as he tries to observe nature. Myfather was determined to operate his newfarm on a scientific basis, so he bought manybooks on sdentitic agticnlture. He encouraged his boys to have independent and profitable ventures of our own, so my brothers and I had a flock of chickens, and at one time or other reared from infancy Iambs, pigs and calves. In doing this I becamea student of scientific agriculture, and have only realized in recent years what a fundamental feeling for science I gained in that way. There was no one to tell methat Morison’s Feeds and Feeding was not a book for a fourteen-year-old, so I ploughed through its hundreds of pages, learning howexperiments were conducted -- how control groups were matched with experimental groups, how conditions were held constant by randomizing procedures, so that the influence of a given food on meat production or milk production could be established. I learned how difficult it is to test an hypothesis. I acquired a knowledgeof and a respect for the methodsof science in a field of practical endeavor. COLLEGE AND ~RADUATE EDUCATION I started in college at Wisconsin in the field of agriculture. One of the things I remember best was the vehement statement of an r "This is Me" 7 agronomyprofessor in regard to the learning and use of facts. He stressed the futility of an encyclopedic knowledge for its own sake, and woundup with the injunction, "Don’t be a damnedammunition wagon; be a rifle!" During myfirst two college years myprofessional goal changed, as the result of someemotionally charged student religions conferences, from that of a scientific agriculturist to that of the ministry -a slight shift! I changed from agriculture to history, believing this would be a better preparation. In my junior year 1 was selected as one of a dozen students from this country to go to China for an international WorldStudent Christian Federation Conference. This was a most important experience for me. It was 1922, four years after the close of World War I. I saw howbitterly the French and Germansstill hated each other, even though as individuals they seemed very likable. I was forced to stretch my thinking, to realize that sincere and honest people could believe in very. divergent religious doctrines. In major ways I for the first time emancipated myself from the religions thinking of my parents, and realized that I could not go along with them. This independence of thought caused great pain and stress in our relationship, hut looking back on it I believe that here, more than at any other one time, I becamean independent person. Of course there was muchrevolt and rebellion in myattitude during that period, hut the essential split was achieved during the six months I was on this trip to the Orient, and hence was thought through away from the influence of home. Although this is an account of elements which influenced my professional development rather than my personal growth, I wish to mention very briefly one profoundly important factor in my personal life. It was at about the time of mytrip to China that 1 fell in love with a lovely girl whomI had knownfor manyyears, even in childhood, and we were married, with the very reluctant consent of our parents, as soon as I finished college, in order that we could go to graduate school together. I cannot be very objective about this. but her steady and sustaining love and companionship during all the years since has been a most important and enriching factor in nay life. 8 ~..~u~G l:~v, y I chose to go to Union Theological Seminary, the most liberal in the country at that time (1924), to prepare for religious work. have never regretted the two years there. I came in contact wir2t SOmegreat scholars and teachers, notably Dr. A. C. McGifferc, who believed devoutly in freedom of inquiry, and in following the truth no matter where it led. Knowinguniversities and graduate schools as I do now--knowing their rules and their rigidities--I am truly astonished at one very significant experience at Union. A group of us felt that ideas were being fed to us, whereas we wished primarily to explore our own questions and doubts, and find out where they led. Wepetitioned the administration that we be allowed to set up a seminar for credit, a seminar with no instructor, where the curriculum would be composedof our ownquestions. The seminary was understandably perplexed by this, but they granted our petition! The nnly restriction was that in the interests of the institution a young instructor was to sit in on the seminar, but would take no part in it unless we wished him to be active. I suppose it is unnecessary to add that this seminar was deeply satisfying and clarifying. I feel that it movedme a long way toward a philoSOphy of life which was my own. The majority of the members of that group, in thinking their way through the questions they had raised, thought themselves right out of religious work. I was one. I felt that questions as to the meaning of life, and the possibility of the eonstructive improvement of life for individuals, would probably always interest me, but I could not work in a field where I would be required to believe in some specified religious doctrine. Mybeliefs had already changed tremendously, and might continue to change. It seemed to me it would be a horrible thing to have to profess a set of beliefs, in order to remain in one’s profession. I wanted to find a field in which I enuld be sure myfreedom of thought would not be limited. BECOMING A PSYCHOLOGIST But what field? I had been attracted, at Union, by the courses and lectures on psychological and psychiatric work, which were then beginning to develop. GoodwinWatson, Harrison Elliotr, "This is Me" 9 Marian Kenworthyall contributed to this interest. I began to take more courses at Teachers’ College, ColumbiaUniversity, across the street from Union Seminary. l took work in philosophy of education with William H. Kilpatrick, and found bim a great teacher. [ began practical clinical work with children under Lera Hullingworth, a sensitive and practical person. I found myseff drawn to child guidance work, so that gradually, with very little painful readjustment, I shifted over into the field of child guidance, and began to think of myself as a clinical psychologist. It was a step [ eased into, with relatively little clearcut conscious choice, rather iust following the activities which interested me. While I was at Teachers’ College I applied for, and was granted a fellowship or internship at the then new Institute for Child Guidance, sponsored by the Commonwealth Fund. I have often been grateful that I was there during the first year. The organization was in a chaotic beginning state, but this meant that one could do what he wanted to do. I soaked up the dynamicFreudian views of the staff, which included David Levy and LawsonLowrey, and found them in great conflict with the rigorous, scientific, coldly obiective, statistical point of view then prevalent at Teachers’ College. Looking back, I believe the necessity of resolving that conflict in me was a most valuable learning experience. At the time [ felt I was functioning in two completely different worlds, "and never the twain shall meet." By the end of this internship it was highly important to me that I obtain a job to suppoA my growing family, even dlougli my doctorate was not completed. Positions were not plentiful, and I rememberthe relief and exhilaration I felt when1 found one. I was employedas psychologist in the Child Study Department of the Socie .~ for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, in Rochester. NewYork. There were three psychologists in this depamncnt, and mysalary was $2,900 per year. I look back at the acceptance of that position with amusementand some amazement.The reason I was so pleased was that it was a chance to do the work I wanted to do. That, by any rcasonable criterion it was a dead-end street professionally, that I w(ndd be isolated from professional contacts, that the salary was not good I0 SPV.Ar.mQPZaSONas..LX, even by the standards of that day, seems not to have occurred to me, as nearly as I can recall. I think I have always had a feeling that if I was given some opportunity to do the thing I was most interested in doing, everything else would somehowtake care of itself. Tnz R~ YEARS The next twelve years in Rochester were exceedingly valuable ones. For at least the first eight of these years, I was completely immersedin carrying on practical psychological service, diagnosing and planning for the delinquent and underprivileged children who were sent to us by the courts and agendeg and in many instances carrying on treatment mterwews. It was a period of relative professional isolation" where myonly concern was in trying to be more effective with our clients. Wehad to live with our failures as web as our successes, so that we were forced to learn. There was only one criterion in regard to any method of dealing with these children and their parents, and that was, "Does it work? Is it effective?" I found I began increasingly to formulate myownviews out of my everyday working experience. Three significant illustrations cometo mind, all small, but important to me at the time. It strikes me that they are all instances of disillusionment--with an authority, with materials, with myself. In mytraining I had been fascinated by Dr. William Healy’s writings, indicating that delinquency was often based upon sexual conflict, and that if this conflict was uncovered, the delinquency ceased. In myfirst or second year at Rochester I workedvery hard with a youthful pyromaniacwho had an unaccountable impulse to set fireg Interviewing him day after day in the detention home, I gradually traced back his desire to a sexual impulse regarding masturbation. Eureka! The case was solved. However, when placed on probation, he again got into the same difi%ulty. I rememberthe iolt I felt. Healy might be wrong. Perhaps I was learning something Healy didn’t know. Somehowthis incident impressed me with the possibility that there were mistakes in authoritarive teachings, and that there was stir new knowledge to discover. The second naive discovery was of a different sort. Soon after coming to Rochester I led a discussion group on interviewing. I "This is Me" It discovered a published account of an interview with a parent, approximately verbatim, in which the ease worker was shrewd, insightful, clever, and led the interview quite quickly to the heart of the difficulty. I was happy to use it as an illustration of good interviewing technique. Several years later, I had a similar assignment and remembered this excellent material. I hunted it up again and re-read i~ I was appalled. Nowit seemed to me to be a clever legalistic type of queStioning by the interviewer which convicted this parent of her unconscious motives, and wrung from her an admission of her guilt. I nowknewfrom my experience that such an interview would not be of any lasting help to the parent or the child. It made me realize that I was movingawayfrom any approach which was coercive or pushing in clinical relationships, not for philosophical reasons, but because such approaches were never more than superficially effective. The third incident occurred several years later. I had learned to be more subtle and patient in interpreting a client’s behavior to him, attempting to time it in a gentle faslfion which would gain acceptance. I had been working with a highly intelligent mother whose boy was something of a hellion. The problem was clearly her early rejection of the boy, but over many interviews I could not help her to this insigh~ I drew her out, I gendy pulled together the evidence she had given, trying to help her see the pattern. But we got nowhere. Finally I gave up. I told her that it seemed we had both tried, but we had failed, and that we might as well give up our contacts. She agreed. So we concluded the interview, shook hands, and she walked to the door of the office. Then she turned and asked, "Do you ever take adults for counseling here’-" Vfhen I replied in the affimlative, she said, "Well then, 1 would like some help." She came to the chair she had left, and began to pour out her despair about her marriage, her troubled relationship with her husband, her sense of failure and confusion, all very different from the sterile "case history" she had given before. Real therapy began then, and ultimately it was very successful. This incident was one of a numberwhich helped me to experience the fact -- only fully realized later-- that it is the client who know,. 12 SPZ.~G PERSONALLy what hurts, what directions to go, what problems are crucial, what experiences have been deeply buried. It began to occur to me that unless I had a need to demonstrate my owncleverness and learning, I would do better t O rely upon the client for the direction of movement in the process. I~CHOLOGIST OR.~ During this period I began to doubt that I was a psychologist. The University of Rochester madeit clear that the work I was doing was not psychology, and they had no interest in myteaching in the PsychologyDepartment. I went to meetings of the AmericanPsychological Association and found them full of papers on the learning processes of rats and laboratory experiments which seemed to me to have no relation to what I was doing. The psychiatric social workers, however, seemed to be talking my language, so I became active in the social work profession, movingup to local and even national offices. Only when the AmericanAssociation for Applied Psychologywas formed did I becomereafiy active as a psychologist. I began to teach courses at the University on howto understand and deal with problem children, under the Departmentof Sociology. Soon the Departmentof Education wanted to classify these as education courses, also. [Before I left Rochester, the Departmentof Psychology, too, finally requested permission to list them, thus at last accepting me as a psychologist.] Simply describing these experiences makes me realize howstubbornly I have followed my owncourse, being relatively unconcernedwith the question of whether I was going with my group or not. Tune does not permit to tell of the work of establishing a separate GuidanceCenter in Rochester, nor the battle with some of the psychiatric profession which was included. These were largely administrative struggles which did not have too muchto do with the developmentof my ideas. MY ORILDREN It was during these Rochester years that myson and daughter grew through infancy and childhood, teaching mefar more about individuals, their development, and their relationships, than I could p "This is Me" 13 ever have learned professionally. I don’t feel I was a very good parent in their early years, but fortunately my wife was, and as time went on I believe 1 gradually becamea better and more understanding parent. Certainly the privilege during these years and later, of being in relationship with two fine sensitive youngsters through all their childhood pleasure and pain, their adolescent assertiveness and difficulties, and on into their adult years and the be~nning of their ownfamilies, has been a priceless one. I think my wife and I regard as one of the most satisfying achievements in which we have had a part, the fact that we can really communicatein a deep way with our grown-upchildren and their spouses, and they with us. OlqIO STATE Y~gS In 1940 I accepted a position at Ohio State University. I am sure the only reason I was considered was my book on the Clinical Treat~nent of the Problem Child, which I had squeezed out of vacations, and brief leaves of absence. To mysurprise, and contrary to my expectation, they offered mea full professorship. I heartily recommendstarting in the academic world at this level. I have often been grateful that I have never had to live through the frequently degrading competitive process of step-by-step promotion in university faculties, where individuals so frequently learn only one lesson -- not to stick their necks out. It was in trying to teach what I had learned about treatment and counseling to graduate students at Ohio State University that I first began to realize that I had perhaps developed a distinctive point of view of my own, out of my experience. WhenI tried to crystallize someof these ideas, and present them in a paper at the University of Minnesota in December1940, I found the reactions were very strong. It was myfirst experience of the fact that a new idea of mine, which to nae can seem all shiny and glowing with potentiality, can to another person be a great threat. And to find myself the center of criticism, of argumenrs pro and con. was disconcertfl~g and made nae doubt and question. Nevcrthelcss I felt I had semlcthi~g to contribute, and wrote the manuscript of Counseling ,111d l’s) c~’~tI’~’r.Tp3, setting forth what I felt to be a somewhatmore cffective oricnt.~t~on to therapy. 14 SPgAKIN0 PZRSONALLy : Here again I realize with some amusementhow little I have cared about being "realistic." WhenI submitted the manuscript, the pubfisher thought it was interesting and new, but wondered what classes would use i~ I replied that I knew of only two- a course I was teaching and one in another university. The publisher felt I had madea grave mistake in not writing a text which would fit courses already being given. He was very dubious that he could sell 2,000 copies, which would be necessary to break even. It was only when I said I would take it to another publisher that he decided to make the gamble. I don’t know which of us has been more surprised at its sales-- 70,000 copies to date and still continuing. RzczsT Yz~s I believe that from this point m the present time myprofessional life--five years at Ohio State, twelve years at the University of Chicago, and four years at the University of Wisconsin-- is quite well documentedby what I have written. I will very briefly stress two or three points which have somesignificance for me. I have learned to live in increasingly deep therapeutic relationships with an ever-widening range of clients. This can be and has been extremely rewarding. It can be and has been at times very frightening, whena deeply disturbed person seems to demandthat I must be more than I am, in order to meet his need. Certainly the carrying on of therapy is something which demandscontinuing personal growth on the part of the therapist, and this is sometimes painful, even though in the long run rewarding. I would also mention the steadily increasing importance which research has cometo have for me. Therapy is the experience in which I can let myself go subjectively. Research is the experience in which I can stand off and try to view this rich subjective experience with objectivity, applying all the elegant methods of science to determine whether I have been deceiving myself. The conviction grows in me that we shall discover laws of personality and behavior which are as significant for humanprogress or humanunderstanding as the law of gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. In the last two decades I have becomesomewhatmore accustomed to being fought over, but the reactions to my ideas continue to sur- "This is Me" 15 prise me. Frommy point of view I have felt that I have always put forth mythoughts in a tentative manner, to be accepted or reiected by the reader or the student. But at different times and places psychologists, counselors, and educators have been movedto great wratb, scorn and criticism by my views. As this furore has tended to die down in these fields it has in recent years been renewed among psychiatrists, someof whomsense, in my wayof working, a deep threat to manyof their most cherished and unquestioned principles. And perhaps the storms of criticism are more than matched by the damagedone by uncritical and unquestioning "disciples"--individuals who have acquired something of a new point of view for themselves and have gone forth to do battle with all and sundry’, using as weaponsboth inaccurate and accurate understandings of me and my work. I have found it difficult to know, at times, whether I have been hurt more by my "friends" or my enemies. Perhaps partly because of the troubling business of being struggled over, I have comem value highly the privilege of getting away, of being alone. It has seemed to me that my most fruitful periods of work are the times whenI have been able to get completely away from what others think, from professional expectations and daily demands, and gain perspective on what I am doing. Mywife and I have found isolated hideaways in Mexicoand in the Caribbean where no one knows I am a psychologist; where painting, swimming, snorkeling, and capturing some of the scenery in color photography are mymajor activities. Yet in these spots, where no more than two to four hours a day goes for professional work, I have mademost of whatever advances I have madein the last few years. I prize the privilege of being alone. SOME SIGNIFICANT LEARNINGS There, in very brief outline, are some of the externals of my professional life. But I would like to take you inside, to tell you some 16 SPs.~x~G I:~Ju~N&t.x.,~ of the things I have learned from the thousands of hours I have spent working intimately with individuals in personal distress. I would like to make it very plain that these are learnings which have significance for me. I do not knowwhether they would hold true for you. I have no desire to present them as a guide for anyone else. Yet I have found that whenanother person has been willing to tell me something of his inner directions this has been of value to me, if only in sharpening my realization that my directions are differenU So it is in that spirit that I offer the learnings which follow. In each case I believe they becamea part of my actions and inner convictions long before I realized them consciously. They are certainly scattered learnings, and incomplete. I can only say that they are and have been very important to me. I continually learn and relearn them. I frequently fail to act in terms of them, but later I wish that I had. Frequently I fail to see a newsituation as one in which someof these learnings might apply. They are not fixed. They keep changing. Someseem to be acquiring a stronger emphasis, others are perhaps less important to me than at one time, but they are all, to me, significant. I will introduce each learning with a phrase or sentence which gives something of its personal meaning. Then I will elaborate on k a bit. There is not muchorganization to what follows except that the first learnings have to do mostly with relationships to others. There follow some that fall in the realm of personal values and convictions. I might start off these several statements of significant learnings with a negative item. In my relationships q~itb persons I ba’ae found that it does not help, in the long bun, to act as though 1 ,were strmething that I am not. It does not help to act calm and pleasant when actually I am angry and critical. It does not help to act as though I know the answers when I do not. It does not help to act as though I were a loving person if actually, at the moment,I am hostile. It does not help for me to act as though I were full of assurance, if actually I am frightened and unsure. Even on a very simple level I have found that this statement seems to hold. It does not help for meto act as though I were well whenI feel ilL "This is Me" 17 What I am saying here, put in another way, is that I have not found it to be helpful or effective in my relationships with other people to try to maintain a facade; to act in one way on the surface whenI am experiencing somethingquite different underneath. It does not, I believe, makemehelpful in myattemptS to build up constructive relationships with other individuals. I would want to make it clear that while I feel I have learned this to be true, I have by no meansadequately profited from it- In fact, it seems to methat most of the mistakes I makein personal relationships, most of the times in which I fail to be of help to other individuals, can be accounted for in terms of the fact that I have, for some defensive reason, behaved in one way at a surface level, while in reality myfeelings run in a contrary direction. A second learning might be stated as follows-- 1 find I am more effective ,when I can listen acceptantly to myselF, and can be myself. I feel that over the years I have learned to becomemore adequate in listening to myself; so that I know, somewhatmore adequately than I used to, what I am feeling at any given moment--to be able to realize I ¢m angry, or that I do feel rejecting toward this person; or that I feel very full of warmthand affection for this individual; or that I am bored and uninterested in what is going on; or that I arn eager to understand this individual or that I am anxious and fearful in my relationship to this person. All of these diverse attitudes are feelings which I think I can listen to in myself. Oneway of putring this is that I feel I have become more adequate in letting myself be what I am. It becomes easier for me to accept myself as a decidedly imperfect person, who by no meansfunctions at all times in the way in which I would like to function. This must seem to somelike a very strange direction in which to move. It seems to me to have value because the curious paradox is that whenI accept myself as I ant, then I change. I belicvc that I have learned this from my clients as well as within my ownexperience- that we cannot change, we cannot moveawayfrom what we are, until we thoroughly accept what we are. Then change seems to comeabout almost unnoticed. Another result which seems to grow out of being myself is that 18 SP~x~a P~SONAI.L~r rehtionships then becomereal. Real relationships have an exciting wayof being vital and meaningful. If I can accept the fact that I am annoyed at or bored by this client or this student, then I am also muchmore likely to be able to accept his feelings in response. I can also accept the changed experience and the changed feelings which are then likely to occur in me and in him. Real relationships tend to change rather than to remain static. So I find it effective to let myself be what I am in my attitudes; to knowwhenI have reached my limit of endurance or of tolerance, and to accept that as a fact; to know whenI desire to mold or manipulate people, and to accept that as a fact in myself. I would like to he as acceptant of these feelings as of feelings of warmth, interest, permissiveness, kindness, understanding, which are also a very real part of me. It is when I do accept all these attitudes as a fact, as a part of me, that myrelationship with the other person then becomeswhat it is, and is able to grow and change most readily. I comenow to a central learning which has had a great deal of significance for me. I can state this learning as follows: I have found it of enormous value when I can permit mysel[ to understand another person. The way in which I have worded this statement may seem strange to you. Is it necessary to permit oneself to understand another? I think that it is. Our first reaction to most of the statements which we hear from other people is an immediate evaluation, or judgment, rather than an understanding of it. Whensomeone expre.~ses some feeling or attitude or belief, our tendency is, almost immediately, to feel "That’s right"; or "That’s stupid"; "That’s abnormal"; "That’s unreasonable"; ’q’hat’s incorrect"; "That’s not nice." Very rarely do we permit ourselves to under~tand precisely what the meaning of his statement is to him. I believe this is because understanding is risky. If I let myself really understand another person, I might be changed by that understanding. And we all fear change. So as I say, it is not an easy thing to permit oneself to understand an individual, to enter thoroughly and completely and empathically into his frame of reference. It is also a rare thing. To understand is enriching in a double way. I find when I am "This is Me" 19 working with clients in distress, that to understand the bizarre world of a psychotic individual, or to understand and sense the attitudes of a person who feels that life is too tragic to bear, or to understand a man who feels that he is a worthless and inferior individual each of these understandings somehowenriches me. I learn from these experiences in ways that change me, that makeme a different and, I think, a more responsive person. Even more important perhaps, is the fact that my understanding of these individuals permits them to change. It permits them to accept their ownfears and bizarre thoughts and tragic feelings and discouragements, as well as their momentsof courage and kindness and love and sensifiviLy. And it is their experience as well as mine that when someone fully understands those feelings, this enables them to accept those feelings in themselves. Then they find both the feelings and themselves changing. Whether it is understanding a womanwho feels that very literally she has a hook in her head by which others lead her about, or understanding a manwhofeels that no one is as lonely, no one is as separated from others as he, I find these understandings to be of value to me. But also, and even more importantly, to be understood has a very positive value to these individuals. Here is another learning which has had importance for me. I have found it enriching to open cbannels ~bereby others can communicate their feelings, tbeir private perceptual ~’orlds, to nte. Because understanding is rewarding, I would like to reduce the barriers between others and me, so that they can, if they wish, reveal themselves more fully. In the therapeutic relationship there are a numberof ways by which I can makeit easier for the client to connntmicate himself. I can by" nay own attitudes create a safety in the relationship wtfich makes such communicationmore possible. A sensitiveness of understanding which sees him as he is to himself, and acccpts him as having those perceptions and feelings, helps too. But as a teacher also I have found that I am enriched whenI can open channels through which others can share thcmsclvcs ~ith me. So I try, often not too successfully, to create a climatc ira the classroomwhere feelings can be expressed, wherepeople can dilfcr-- with each other and with the instructor. I have also frequently asked for "reaction sheets" from students--in which they (:an ex. press themselves individually and personally regarding the course They can tell of the way it is or is not meeting their needs, they can express their feelings regarding the instructor, or can tell of the personal difficulties they are having in relation to the course. These reaction sheets have no relation whatsoever to their grade. Soma times the same sessions of a course are experienced in diametrically opposite way~Onestudent says, "Myfeeling is one of indefinable revulsion with the tone of this class." Another, a foreign student speaking of the same week of the same course says, "Our class fol. lows the best, fruitful and scientific way of learning. But for people who have been taught for a long, long time, as we have, by the lee. ture type, authoritative method, this new procedure is ununderstandable. People like us are conditioned to hear the instructor, to keep passively our notes and memorizehis reading assignments for the exams. There is no need to say that it takes long time for people to get rid of their habits regardless of whether or not their habiu are sterile, infertile and barren." To open myself to these sharply different feelings has been a deeply rewarding thing. I have found the same thing true in groups where I am the administrator, or perceived as the leader. I wish to reduce the need for fear or defensiveness, so that people can communicatetheir feelings freely. This has been most exciting, and has led me to a whole ne~v view of what administration can be. But I cannot expand on that here. There is another very important learning which has come to me in my counseling work. I can voice this learning very briefly, l have found it highly rewarding when I can accept another person. I have found that truly to accept another person and his feelings is by no means an easy thing, any more than is understanding. Can I really permit another person to feel hostile toward me? Can 1 accept his anger as a real and legitimate part of himself? Can 1 accept him whenhe views life and its problems in a way quite different from mine? Can I accept him whenhe feels very positively "This is Me" 21 toward me, admiring meand wanting to model himself after me? All this is involved in acceptance, and it does not come easy. I believe that it is an increasingly commonpattern in our culture for each one of us to befieve, "Every other person must feel and think and believe the same as I do." Wefind it very hard to permit our children or our parents or our spouses to feel differently than we do about particular issues or problems. Wecannot pernfit our clients or our students to differ from us or to utilize their experience in their ownindividual ways. On a national scale, we cannot permit another nation to think or feel differently than we do. Yet it has cometo seem to methat this separateness of individuals, the right of each individual to utilize his experience in his ownway and to discover his own meanings in it,--this is one of the most priceless potentialitius of fife. Each person is an island unto himself, in a very real sense; and he can only build bridges to other islands if he is first of all willing to be himself and permitted to he himself. So I find that when I can accept another person, which means specifically accepting the feelings and attitudes and beliefs that he has as a real and vital part of him, then I amassisting him to becomea person: and there seems to me great value in this. The next learning I want to state maybe di~cult to communicate. It is this. The more I am open to the realities in me and in tbe otber person, the less do l find myself wishing to rush in to "fix things." As I try to listen to myself and the experiencing going on in me, and the more I try to extend that same listening attitude to another person, the more respect I feel for the complexprocesses of life. So I become less and less inclined to hurry in to fix things, to set goals, to moldpeople, to manipulate and push them in the way that I would like them to go. I am muchmore content simply to be myself and to let another person be himself. I know very well that this must seemlike a strange, almost an Oriental point of view. Whatis life for if we are not going to do things to people.-" Whatis life for 1 t if we are not going to mold them to our purposes? Whatis life for ’ if we are not going to teach them the things that we 3think the should learn? What is life for if we are not going to makethem 22 ~o ]P]~N,~.t~ think and fed as we doP Howcan anyone hold such an inactive point of view as the one I am expressing? I amsure that ardrud~ such as these must be a part of the reaction of manyof you. Yet the paradoxical aspect of my experience is that the more I am simply willing to he myself, in all this complexity of life and th more I am wiring to understand and accept the realities in myse]~ and in the other person, the more change seems to be stirred up. is a very paradoxical thing w that to the degree that each one of is willing to be himself, then he finds not only himself changing; b~ he finds that other people to whomhe relates are also changing. & least this is a very vivid part of my experience, and one of the deepes things I think I have learned in my personal and professinnal life. Let me turn nowto someother learnings which are less concernec with rehtiomhips, and have more to do with myownactions an~ values. The first of these is very brief. 1 can trust my experience One of the basic things which I was a long time in realizing, an~ which I am still learning, is that when an activity fee/s as thougt it is valuable or worth doing, it is worth doing. Put another way I have learned that my total organismic sensing of a situation i " more trustworthy than my intellect. All of my professional life I have been going in directions whirl others thought were foolish, and about which I have had man! doubts myself. But I have never regretted movingin directio~ which "felt right," even though I have often felt lonely or foolis~ at the time. I have found that whenI have m~dsome inner nonointellectm sensing, I have discovered wisdomin the move. In fact I have fount that when I have followed one of these unconventional paths be cause it felt tight or true, then in five or ten years manyof my cd leagues have joined me, and I no longer need to feel alone in it. As I gradually cometo trust my total reactions more deeply, i find that I can use them to guide my thinking. I have cometo ha more respect for those vague thoughts which occur in me fro~ time to time, which feel as though they were s~gnificanr~ I ami~ dined to think that these unclear thoughts or hunches will lead r~ to important areas. I think of it as trusting the totality of myexpel/ "This is Me" 23 ence, whichI have learned to suspect is wiser than myintellect- It is fallible I am sure, but I believe it to be less fallible than my conscious mind alone. Myattitude is very well expressed by MaxWeber, the artist, when he says. "In carrying on my own humble creative effort, I depend greatly upon that which I do not yet know, and upon that which I have not yet done." Very closely related to this learning is a corollary that, evaluation by others is not a guide for me. The judgqnents of others, while they are to be listened to, and taken into account for what they are, can never be a guide for me. This has been a hard tiring to learn. I rememberhowshaken I was, in the early days, whena scholarly thoughtful manwhoseemedto me a muchmore competent and knowledgeable psychologist than I, told me what a mistake I was makingby getting interested in psychotherapy. It could never lead anywhere, and as a psychologist I would not even have the opport-unity to practice it. In later years it has sometimes jolted mea bit to learn that 1 am, in the eyes of some others, a fraud, a person practicing medicine without a license, the author of a very superficial and damagingsort of therapy, a power seeker, a mystic, etc. AndI have been equally disturbed by equally extreme praise. But I have not been too much concerned because I have cometo feel that only one person (at least in my lifetime, and perhaps ever) can knowwhether what am doing is honest, thorough, open, and sound, or false and defensive and unsound, and I am that person. I am happy to get all sorts of evidence regarding what I amdoing and criticism (both friendly and hostile) and praise (both sincere and fawning) are part of such evidence. But to weigh this evidence and to determine its meaningand usefulness is a task I cannot refinquish to anyone else. In view of what I have been saying the next learning will probably not surprise you. Experience is, for me, the highest authority. The touchstone of validity is myown experience. No other pcrsan’s ideas, and none of myownideas, are as authoritative as nay experience. It is to experience that I must return again and again, to dis- 24 SPz.~me PERSON~.Z.~, cover a closer approximation to u’uth as k is in the process of becomingin me. Neither the Bible nor the prophets--neither Freud nor research neither the revehtious of Godnor man--can take precedence over my owndirect experience. Myexperience is the more authoritative as it becomesmore pri. mary, to use the semanticist’s term. Thus the hierarchy of experience would be most authoritative at its lowest level. If I read a theory of psychotherapy, and if I formulate a theory of psychotherapy based on my work with clients, and if I also have a direct experience of psychotherapy with a client, then the degree of authority increas~ in the order in which I have listed these experiences. Myexperience is not authoritative because it is infallible. It is the basis of authority because it can always be checked in newprimary ways. In this way its frequent error or fallibility is always open t~ correction. Nowanother personal learning. I enjoy the discovering of orda in experience. It seems inevitable that I seek for the meaning or the orderliness or lawfulness in any large body of experience. It is th~ ldnd of curiosity, which I find it very satisfying to pursue, which h~ led meto each of the major formulations I have made. It led meto search for the orderliness in all the conglomeration of things clg ulciaus did for children, and out of that came my book on The Cling cal Treatment of the Problem Child. It led me to formulate the general principles which seemed to be operative in psychotherapy, and that has led to several books and manyarticles. It has led me into research to test the various types of lawfulness which I feel I have encountered in my experience. It has enticed me to constru~ theories to bring together the orderliness of that which has already been experienced and to project this order forward into new and unexplored realms where it maybe further tested. Thus I have cometo see both scientific research and the proce~ of theory construction as being aimed toward the inward ordering of significant experience. Research is the persistent disciplined effor~ to makesense and order out of the phenomenaof subjective experi- l" "This is Me" 25 enee. It is justified because it is satisfying to perceive the world as having order, and because rewarding results often ensue whenone understands the orderly relationships which appear in nature. So I have come to recognize that the reason I devote myself to research, and to the building of theory, is to satisfy a need for perceiving order and meaning, a subjective need which exists in me. I have, at times, carried on research for other reasons--to satisfy others, to convince opponents and sceptics, to get ahead professionally, to gain prestige, and for other unsavory reasons. These errors in judgment and activity have only served to convince me more deeply that there is only one sound reason for pursuing scientific activities, and that is to satisfy a need for meaning which is in me. Another learning which cost me much to recognize, can be stated in four words. Tbe facts are friendly. It has interested me a great deal that most psychotherapists, especially the psychoanalysts, have steadily refused to makeany scientific investigation of their therapy, or to permit others to do this. I can understand this reaction because I have felt it. Especially in our early investigations I can well rememberthe arLxiew of waiting to see howthe findings cameout. Supposeour hypotheses were disproved! Supposewe were mistaken in our views! Supposeour opinions were not justified! At such times, as I look back, it seems to me that I regarded the facts as potential enemies, as possible bearers of disaster. I have perhaps been slow in comingto realize that the factS are always friendly. Every bit of evidence one can acquire, in any area, leads one that much closer to what is true. And being closer to the truth can never be a harmful or dangerous or unsatisfying thing. So while I still hate to readjust my thinking, still hate to give up old ways of perceiving and conceptualizing, yet at somedeeper level I have, to a considerable degree, cometo realize that these painful reorganizations are what is known as learning, and that thougb painful they ahvays lead to a more satisfying because somewhatmore accurate way of seeing life. Thus at the present time one of the most enticing areas for thought and speculation is an area whereseveral of nay pet ideas have not been upheld by the 26 SP~GPF~tSONALL’y evidence. I feel if I can only puzzle my way through this problem that I will find a much more satisfying approximation to the truth. I feel sure the facts will be my friends. Somewherehere I want to bring in a learning which has been most rewarding, because it makes me feel so deeply akin to others. I can word it this way. Whatis most personalis most general. There have been times when in talking with students or staff, or in my writing, I have expressed myself in waysso personal that I have felt I was expressing an attitude which it was probable no one else could understand, because it was so uniquely my own. Twowritten examples of this are the Preface to Client-Centered Therapy (regarded as most unsuitable by the publishers), and an article on "Persons or Science." In these instances I have almost invariably found that the very feeling which has seemedto memost private, most personal, and hence most incomprehansible by others, has turned out to be an expression for which there is a resonance in manyother people. It has led me to believe that what is most personal and unique in each one of us is probably the very dement which would, if it were shared or expressed, speak most deeply to others. This has helped me to understand artists and poets as people who have dared co express the unique in themselves. There is one deep learning which is perhaps basic to all of the things I have said thus far. It has been forced upon meby more than twenty-five years of trying to be helpful to individuals in personal distress. It is simply this. It has been my experience that persons have a basically positive direction. In my deepest contacts with individuals in therapy, even those whose troubles are most disturbing, whose behavior has been most anti-social, whose feelings seem most abnormal, I find this to be true. WhenI can sensitively understand the feelings which they are expressing, whenI amable to accept them as separate persons in their ownright, then I find that they tend to movein certain directions. And what are these directions in which they tend to move?The words which I believe are most truly descriptive are words such as positive, constructive, moving toward serf-actualization, growing toward maturity, grow- "This is Me" 27 ing toward socialization. I have cometo feel that the more fully the individual is understood and accepted, the more he tends to drop the false fronts with which he has been meeting life, and the morehe tends to movein a direction which is forward. I would not want to be misunderstood on this. I do not have a poflyanna view of humannature. I am quite aware that out of defensiveness and inner fear individuals can and do behave in ways which are incredibly cruel, horribly destructive, immature, regressive, anti-social, hurtful. Yet one of the most refreshing and invigorating parts of myexperience is to workwith such individuals and to discover the strongly positive directional tendencies which exist in them, as in all of us, at the deepest levels. Let me bring this long list to a close with one final learning which can be stated very briefly. Life, at its be~t, is a /io,a:ing, cbanging process in ~bicb notbing is fixed. In my clients and in myself I find that when life is richest and most rewarding it is a flowing process. To experience this is both fascinating and a little frightening. I find I am at my best whenI can let the flow of my experience carry me, in a direction which appears to be forward, toward goals of which I am but dimly aware. In thus floating with the complex stream of my experiencing, and in trying to understand its ever-chan~ng complexity, it should be evident that there are no Hxedpoints. WhenI am thus able to be in process, it is clear that there can be no closed system of beliefs, no unchanging set of principles which I hold. Life is guided by a changing understanding of and interpretation of my experience. It is always in process of becoming. I trust it is clear now why there is no philosophy or belief or set of principles wbich I could encourage or persuade others to have or hold. I can only try to live by my interpretation of the currenz meaningof myexperience, and try to give others the permission and freedom to develop their owninward freedom and thus their own meaningful intcrpretation of their ownexperience. If there is such a thing as truth, this free individual process of search should, I believe, converge toward it. Andin a limited way, this is also what I seem to have experienced. F PART II How Can I Be of Help? I have found a Nay of ~’orking ~vith individuals ~:hiah secTns to have much constructive potential. ~r 2 Some Hypotheses Regarding the Facilitation of Personal Growth The three "wbicb constitute Partthey II span of aix years, chapters from 1954 to 1960. Curiously, span aa period large segment of the country in their points of delivery -- Oberlin, Ohio; St. Louis, Missouri; and Pasadena,California. They also cover a period in ¯ which much research ,was accunndating, so that statements made tentatively in the first paper are rather solidly confirnzed by the time of the third. In the folio.wing talk given at Oberlin College in 1954 [ .o.’as trying to compress into the briefest possible time the fundamental principles of psychotherapy ~z’hich had been expressed at greater length in my hooks, (Counsefing and Psychotherapy) (1942) and (ClientCentered Therapy) (1951). It is of interest to me that I present the facilitating relationship, and the outcomes, v.,itb no description of, or even coymnent on, the process by .,vhicb change comes about. To By.expecting raced byhelp, a troubled, conflicted whochallenee is seeking has always constitutedperson a ~reat to and me. Do I have the knowledge,the resources, the psychological strengr2~ 31 32 How CAN I BE oF Hvz.P? the skill-- do I have whatever it takes to be of help to such an individual? For more than twenty-five years I have been trying to meet this kind of challenge. It has caused meto draw upon every element of my professional background: the rigorous methods of personality measurementwhich I first learned at Teachers’ College, Columbia; the Freudian psychoanalytic insights and methods of the Institute for Child Guidancewhere I worked as interne; the continuing developments in the field of clinical psychology, with which I have been closely associated; the briefer exposure to the work of Otto Rank, to the methods of psychiatric social work, and other resources too numerousto mention. But most of all it has meant a continual learning from my own experience and that of my colleagues at the Counseling Center as we have endeavored to discover for ourselves effective means of working with people in distress. Gradually I have developed a way of working which grows our of that experience, and which can be tested, refined, and reshaped by further experience and by research. Y A G~ H~q~rngsis Onebrief wayof descn’bing the change which has taken place in meis to say that in myearly professional years I was asking the question, Howcan I treat, or care, or change this person? NowI would phrase the question in this way: Howcan I provide a relationship which this person mayuse for his own personal growth? It is as I have come to put the question in this second way that I realize that whatever I have learned is applicable to all of my human relationships, not just to working with clients with problems. It is for this reason that I feel it is possible that the learning~ which have had meaningfor mein myexperience mayhave somemeaningfor you in your experience, since all of us are involved in humanrelationships. Perhaps I shunld start with a negative learning. It has gradually been driven hometo me that I cannot be of help to this troubled person by meansof any intellectual or training procedure. No approach which relies upon knowledge, upon training, upon the acceptance of something that is taught, is of any use. These approaches P The Facilitation of Personal Growth 33 seem so tempting and direct that I have, h the past, tried a great manyof them. It is possible to exphin a person to himself, to prescribe steps which should lead him forward, to train him in knowledge about a more satisfying modeof life. But such methodsare, in my experience, futile and inconsequential. The most they can accomplish is some temporary change, which soon disappears, leaving the individual more than ever convinced of his inadequacy. The failure of any such approach through the intellect has forced me to recognize that change appears to comeabout through experience in a relationship. So I am going to try to state very. briefly and informally, some of the essential hypotheses regarding a helping relationship which have seemed to gain increasing confirmation both from experience and research. I can state the overall hypothesis in one sentence, as follows. If I can provide a certain type of relationship, the other person will discover within himself the capacity to use that relationship for growth, and change and personal development will occur. THERELATIONSmP But what meaning do these terms have? Let me take separately the three major phrases in this sentence and indicate something of the meaningthey have for me. Whatis this certain type of relationship I would like to provide? I have found that the more that I can be genuine in the relationship, the more helpful it will be. This meansthat I need to be aware of my own feelings, in so far as possible, rather than presenting an outward facade of one attitude, while actually holding another attitude at a deeper or unconscious level. Being genuine also involves the willingness to be and to express, in mywords and mybehaxior, the various feelings and attitudes which exist in me. It is only in this way that the relationship can have reality, and reality seems deeply important as a first condition. It is only by providing the genuine reality which is in me, that the other person can successfully seek for the reality in him. I have found this to be true even whenthe attitudes I feel are not attitudes with which I amplc~Lqed, or attitudes which seem conducive to a good relationship. It seems extremely important to be real. 34 HowCANI Bz oF HzL~? As a second condition, I find that the more acceptance and liking I feel toward this individual, the moreI will be creating a relationship which he can use. By acceptance I meana warmregard for him as a person of unconditional self-wotth--of value no matter what his condition, his behavior, or his feelings. It means a respect and lilting for him as a separate person, a willingness for him to possess his ownfeelings in his ownway. It meansan acceptance of and regard for his attitudes of the moment,no matter how negative or positive, no matter how muchthey may contradict other attitudes he has held in the past. This acceptance of each fluctuating aspect of this other person makesit for him a rehtionship of warmthand safety, and the safety of being liked and prized as a person seems a highly important element in a helping relationship. I also find that the relationship is significant to the extent that I feel a continuing desire to understand--a sensitive empathywith each of the client’s feelings and communicationsas they seem to him at that momen~Acceptance does not mean muchuntil it involves understanding. It is only as I understand the feelings and thoughts which seem so horrible to you, or so weak, or so sentimental, or so bizarre-- it is only as I see them as you see them, and accept them and you, that you feel really free to explore all the hidden nooks and frightening crannies of your inner and often buried experience. Tiffs freedom is an important condition of the rehtionslfip. There is implied here a freedom to explore oneself at both conscious and unconscious levels, as rapidly as one can dare to embark on this dangerous quest. There is also a complete freedom from any type of moral or diagnostic evaluation, since all such evaluations are, I believe, always threatening. Thus the relationship which I have found helpful is characterized by a sort of transparency on my part, in which my real feelings are evident; by an acceptance of this other person as a separate person with value in his ownright; and by a deep empathic understanding which enables me to see his private world through his eyes. When these conditions are achieved, I becomea companionto myclient, accompanyinghim in the frightening search for himself, which he nowfeels free to undertake. I am by no means always able to achieve this kind of relationship The Facilitation of Personal Growth 35 with another, and sometimes, even whenI feel I have achieved it in myself, he maybe too frightened to perceive what is being offered to him. But I would say that whenI hold in myself the kind of attitudes I have described, and whenthe other person can to some degree experience these attitudes, then I believe that change and constructive personal developmentwill invariably occur--and I include the word "invariably" only after long and careful consideration. THEMOTIVATION FORCHANGE So muchfor the relationship. The second phrase in myoverall hypothesis was that the individual will discover within himself the capacity to use this relationship for growth. I will try to indicate somethingof the meaningwhich that phrase has for me. Gradually myexperience has forced me to conclude that the individual has within himself the capacity and the tendency, latent if not evident, to move forward toward maturity. In a suitable psychological climate this tendency is released, and becomesactual rather than potential. It is evident in the capacity of the individual to understand those aspects of his life and of himself which are causing him pain and dissatisfaction, an understanding which probes beneath his conscious knowledgeof himself into those experiences which he has hidden from himself because of their threatening nature. It shows itself in the tendency to reorganize his personality and his relationship to life in ways which are regarded as more mature. Whether one calls it a growth tendency, a drive toward self-actualization, or a forward-movingdirectional tendency, it is the mainspring of life, and is, in the last analysis, the tendency upon which all psychotherapy depends¯ It is the urge which is evident in all organic and humanlife- to expand, extend, becomeautonomous,develop, mature ~ the tendency to express and activate all the capacities of the organism, to the extent that such activation enhances the organism or the self. This tendency may become deeplv buried under layer after layer of encrusted psychological defenses; it may be hidden behind elaborate facades w a ch deny its existence; but it is mybelief that it exists in every individual, and awaits only the proper conditions to be released and expressed. 36 HowCANI Bz o~ t-IzLp? THEOUTCOMES I have attempted to describe the rehtionship which is basic to constructive personality change. I have tried to put into words the type of capacity which the individual brings to such a rehtionship. The third phrase of my general statement was that change and personal developmentwould occur. It is my hypothesis that in such a relationship the individual will reorganize himself at both the conscious and deeper levels of his personality in such a manneras to cope with life more cons~ctively, more intelligently, and in a more socialized as well as a more satisfying way. Here I can depart from speculation and bring in the steadily increasing body of sufid research knowledgewhich is accumulating. Weknownow that individuals wholive in such a relationship even for a rehtively limited numberof hours showprofound and significant changes in personality, attitudes, and behavior, changes that do not occur in matched control groups. In such a relationship the individual becomesmore integrated, more effective. He shows fewer of the characteristics which are usually termed neurotic or psychotic, and more of the characteristics of the healthy, well-functioning person. He changes his perception of himself, becomingmore realistic in his views of self. He becomesmore like the person he wishes to be. He values himself more highly. He is more serf-confident and self-directing. He has a better understanding of himself, becomesmore open to his experience, denies or represses less of his experience. He becomesmore accepting in his attitudes toward others, seeing others as more similar to himself. In his behavior he shows similar changes. He is less frustrated by mess, and recovers from stress more quickly. He becomesmore mature in his everyday behavior as this is observed by friends. He is less defensive, moreadaptive, more able to meet situations creatively. These are some of the changes which we now knowcomeabout in individuals who have completed a series of counseling interviews in which the psychological atmosphere approximates the relationship I described. Each of the statements madeis based upon obiective evidence. Muchmore research needs to be done, but there can no longer be any doubt as to the effectiveness of such a relationship in producing personality change. _~.* jr The Facilitation of Personal Growth 37 A BROAD HYPOTHESIS OFHUMAN RELATIONSHIPS To me, the exciting thing about these research findings is not simply the fact that they give evidence of the efficacy of one form of psychotherapy, though that is by no means unimportant. The excitement comesfrom the fact that these findings justify an even broader hypothesis regarding all humanrelationships. There seems ’ every reason to suppose that the therapeutic relationship is only one instance of interpersonal relations, and that the same lawfulness governs all such relationships. Thus it seems reasonable to hypothesize that if the parent creates with his child a psychological climate such as we have described, then the child will becomemore self-directing, socialized, and mature. To the extent that the teacher creates such a relationship with his class, the student will becomea self-initiated learner, more original, more self-disciplined, less amy ious and other-directed. If the administrator, or military or industrial leader, creates such a climate within his organization, then his staff win becomemore self-responsible, more creative, better able to adapt to new problems, more basically cooperative. It appears possible to me that we are seeing the emergenceof a new field of humanrelationships, in which we mayspecify that if certain attitudinal conditions exist, then certain definable changes will occur. CONCLUSION Let meconclude by returning to a personal statement. I have tried to share with you something of what I have learned in trying to be of help to troubled, unhappy, maladjusted individuals. I have formulated the hypothesis which has gradually come to have meanhag for me-- not only in myrelationship to clients in distress, but in all myhumanrelationships. I have indicated that such research knowledgeas we have supports this hypothesis, but that there is muchmore investigation needed. I should like now to pull together into one statement the conditions of this general hypothesis, and tile effects which are specified. If I can create a rciatiouship characterized on mypart: by a genuineness and transparency, in which I ammyreal feelhags; How C~ I BE ol, H~ by a warmacceptance of and prizing of the other person as a separate individual; by a sensitive ability to see his world and himself as he sees them; Then the other individual in the relationship: win experience and understand aspects of himself which pre~ viously he has repressed; will find himself becomingbetter integrated, moreable to function effectively; will become more similar to the person he would like to be; will be more self-directing and self-confident; will becomemore of a person, more unique and more self-expressive; will be moreunderstanding, moreacceptant of others; will be able to cope with the problems of life more adequately and more comfortably. I believe that this statement holds whether I am speaking of my relationship with a client, with a group of students or staff members, with my family or children. It seems to me that we have here a general hypothesis which offers exciting possibilities for the development of creative, adaptive, autonomouspersons. 3 The Characteristics of a Helping Relationship have long had the strong conviction--some might say it v:as an I obsession- that the therapeutic relationship is only a special instance o[ interpersonal relationships in general, and that the scone lawfulness governs all such relationships. This ~,~’as the theme l chose to ,work out for myself ~a, hen I was asked to give an address to the convention of the American Personnel and Guidance Association at St. Louis, in 1958. Evident in this paper is the dichotomy bet~’een the objecti-ce and the subjective which has been snch an important part of my experience during recent years. I find it very difficult to give a paper ~a:hich is either ~,holly objective or ~,z, holly snhjecti-ce, l like to bring the t~,z’o ~’orlds into close juxtaposition, even i T 1 cannot [ully reconcile them. about in M est in every kind of helping relatbrought onship. By tiffs interterm I mean a relationship in which at least one of the parties has the intent of 39 y INTERF~qT 1N PSYCHOTHERAPY has me an 40 How CANI Bz or HRx.~? promoting the growth, development, maturity, improved function. ing, improved coping with life of the other. The other, in this sense, may be one individual or a group. To put it in another way, a helping relationship might be defined as one in which one of the participanrs intends that there should come about, in one or both parties, more appreciation of, more expression of, more functional use of the latent inner resources of the individual Nowit is obvious that such a definition covers a wide range of relationships which usually are intended to facilitate growth. It would certainly include the relationship between mother and child, father and child. It wouldinclude the rehtiomhip betweenthe physician and his patient. The relationship between teacher and pupil would often comeunder this definition, though someteachers would not have the promotion of growth as thdr intent. It includes almost all counselor-client rehtionships, whether we are speaking of educational counseling, vocational counseling, or personal counselhag. In this last-mentioned area it would include the wide range of relationships between the psychotherapist and the hospitalized psychotic, the therapist and the troubled or neurotic individual, and the relationship between the therapist and the increasing number of socalled "normal" individuals who enter therapy to improve their own functioning or accelerate their personal growth. These are largely one-to-one relationships. But we should also think of the large numberof individual-group interactions which are intended as helping relationships. Someadministrators intend that their relationship to their staff groups shall be of the sort which promotes growth, though other administrators would not have this purpose. The interaction betweenthe group therapy leader and his group belongs here. So does the rehtionship of the community consultant to a communitygroup. Increasingly the interaction between the industrial consultant and a managementgroup is intended as a helping relationship. Perhaps this listing will point up the fact that a great manyof the relationships in which we and others are involved fall within this category of interactions in which there is the purpose of promoting developmentand more mature and adequare functioning. 41 Characteristics of a Helping Relationship THE QUESTION But what are the characteristics of those relationships which do help, which do facilitate growth? Andat the other end of the scale is it possible to discern those characteristics which make a relationship unhelpful, even though it was the sincere intent to promote growth and development? It is to these questions, particularly the first, that I would llke to take you with me over someof the paths I have explored, and to tell you where I am, as of now, in mythinkhag on these issueg THE ANSWERS GIVEN BY RESEARCH It is natural to ask first of all whether there is any empirical research wlfich would give us an objective answer to these questionS. There has not been a large amount of research in this area as yct, but what there is is stimulating and suggestive. I cannot report all of it but I would like to makea somewhatextensive sampling of the studies wlfich have been done and state ve~" briefly some of the findings. In so doing, oversimplification is necessary, and I am quite aware that I am not doing full justice to the researches l am mcntioning, but it maygive you the feeling that factual advances are bcing madeand pique your curiosity enough to examine the studies themselves, if you have not already done so. STUDIES OFATTITUDES Most of the studies throw light on the attitudes on the part of the helping person which makea relationship grosvth-pronloting or growth-int~ibiting. Let us look at some of these. A careful study of parent-child relationships made some years ago by Baldwin and others (1) at the Fels Institute contains intcresting evidence. Of the various clusters of parental attitudes toward children, the "acceptant-democratic" seemed most growth-facilitating. Children of these parents with their warmand equalitarian atximdes showed an accelerated intellectual development (an increasing I.Q.), How CAN I B~ oi ~? more originaliw, more emotional security and control, less excitability than children from other types of homes. Thoughsomewhat slow initially in social development, they were, by the time they reached school age, popular, friendly, non-aggressive leaders. Whereparents’ attitudes are classed as "actively reiectant,, the children show a slightly decelerated intellectual development, reLatively poor use of the abilities they do possess, and somelack of originality. They are emotionally unstable, rebellious, aggressive, and quarrelsome. The children of parents with other attitude syndromes tend in various respects to fall in between these extremes. I am sure that these findings do not surprise us as rehted to child development. I would like to suggest that they probably apply to other relationships as well, and that the counselor or physician or administrator who is warmly emotional and expressive, respectful of the individuality of himself and of the other, and whoexhibits a nonpossessive caring, probably facilitates self-realizarion muchas does a parent with these attitudes. Let me turn to another careful study in a very different area. Whitehornand Betz (2, 18) investigated the degree of success achieved by youngresident physicians in working with schizophrenic patients on a psychiatric ward. They chose for special study the seven whohad been outstandingly helpful, and seven whosepatients had shownthe least degree of improvement.Each group had treated about fifty patients. The investigators examinedall the available evidence to discover in what ways the A group (the successful group) differed from the B group. Several significant differences were found. The physicians in the A group tended to see the schizophrenic in terms of the personal meaningwhich various behaviors had to the patient, rather than seeing him as a case history or a descriptive diagnosis. They also tended to work toward goals which were oriented to the personality of the patient, rather than such goals as reducing the symptomsor curing the disease. It was found that the helpful physicians, in their day by day interaction, primarily madeuse of active personal participation--a person-to-person rehtionship. They made less use of procedures which could be classed as "passive permissive." They were even less likely to use such procedures as interpretation, instruction or advice, or emphasis upon Cbaracterixtics of a Helping Relationship 43 the practical care of the patient. Finally, they were muchmore hkely than the B group to develop a relationship in which the patient felt trust and confidence in the physician. Although the authors cautiously emphasize that these findings relate only to the treatment of schizophrenics, I am inclined to disagree. I suspect that similar facts would be found in a research study of almost any class of helping relationship. Another interesting study focuses upon the way in which the person being helped perceives the relationship. Heine (11) studied individuals whohad gone for psychotherapeutic help to psychoanalytic, client-centered, and Adlerian therapists. Regardless of the type of therapy, these clients report similar changes in themselves. But it is their perception of the relationship which is of particular interest to us here. Whenasked what accounted for the changes which had occurred, they expressed some differing explanations, depending on the orientation of the therapist. But their agreement on the major elements they had found helpful was even more significant. They indicated that these attitudinal elements in the relationship accounted for the changes which had taken place in themselves: the trust they had felt in the therapist; being understood by the therapist; the feeling of independence they had had in makingchoices and decisions. The therapist procedure which they had found most helpful was that the therapist clarified and openly stated feelings which the client had been approaching hazily and hesitandy. There was also a high degree of agreement amongthese clients, regardless of the orientation of their therapists, as to what elements had been unhelpful in the relationship. Such therapist attitudcs as lack of interest, remoteness or distance, and an over-degree of synlpathy, were perceived as unhelpful. As to procedures, they had found it unhelpful whentherapists had given direct specific advice regarding decisions or had emphasizedpast history rather than present problems. Guiding suggestions mildly given were perceived in an intermediate range -- neither clearly helpful nor unhelpful. Fiedler, in a nmch quoted study (7), found that expert therapists of differing orientations formed similar relationships with their clients. Less well knownare the elements which characterized these relationships, differentiating them from the relationships formed by 44 HowCANI BI o~ Hra~? less expert therapists. These elements are: an ability to understand the client’s meanings and feelings; a sensitivity to the client’s attitudes; a warminterest without any emotional over-involvement. A study by Quinn (14) throws light on what is involved in understanding the client’s meanings and feelings. His study is surprising in that it shows that "understanding" of the client’s meanings is essentially an attitude of desiring to understand. Quinn presented his judges only with recorded therapist statements taken from interviews. The raters had no knowiedgsof what the therapist was responding to or howthe client reacted to his response. Yet it was found that the degree of understanding could be judged about as well from this materhl as from listening to the response in context. This seems rather conclusive evidence that it is an attitude of wanting to unders~d which is communicated. As to the emotional quality of the rehtionship, Seeman(16) found that success in psychotherapy is closely associated with a strong and growing mutual liking and respect between client and therapist. An interesting study by Dittes (4) indicates howdelicate this rehtinuship is, Using a physiological measure, the psychogalvanic reflex, to measure the anxious or threatened or alerted reactions of the client, Dittes correlated the deviatious on this measure with judges’ ratings of the degree of warmacceptance and permissiveness on the part of the therapist. It was found that whenever the therapist’s attitudes changed even slightly in the direction of a lesser degree of acceptance, the numberof abrupt GSRdeviations significantly increased. Evidently whenthe relationship is experienced as less acceptant the organism organizes against threat, even at the physiological leveL Without trying fully to integrate the findings from these various studies, it can at least be noted that a few things stand ou~ One is the fact that it is the attitudes and feelings of the therapist, rather than his theoretical orientation, which is importan~ His procedures and techniques are less important than his attitudes. It is also worth noting that it is the way in which his attitudes and procedures arc perceived which makesa difference to the client, and that it is this perception which is crucial. Characteristics of a Helping Relationship 45 ~IMANU FACTURED" RELATIONSHIPS Let me turn to research of a very different sort, some of which you mayfind rather abhorrent, but which nevertheless has a bearing upon the nature of a facilitating relationship. These studies have to do with what we might think of as manufactured relationships. Verplanck (17), Greenspoon(8) and others have shown operant conditioning of verbal behavior is possible in a relationship. Very briefly, if the experimenter says "Mhm,"or "Good," or nods his head after certain types of words or statements, those classes of words tend to increase because of being reinforced. It has been shown that using such procedures one can bring about increases in such diverse verbal categories as plural nouns, hostile words, statements of opinion. The person is completely unaware that he is being influenced in any way by these reinforcers. The implication is that by such selective reinforcement we could bring it about that the other person in the relationship would be using whatever kinds of words and makingwhatever kinds of statements we had decided to reinforce. Following still further the principles of operant conditioning as developed by Skinner and his group, Lindsley (12) has shownthat chronic schizophrenic can be placed in a "helping relationship" with a machine. The machine, somewhatlike a vending machine, can be set to reward a variety of types of behaviors. Initially it simply rewards- with candy, a cigarette, or the display of a picture- the lever-pressing behavior of the patient. But it is possible to set it so that many pulls on the lever may supply a hungry kitten- visible in a separate enclosure--with a drop of milk. In this cage the satisfaction is an altruistic one. Plans are being developed to reward similar social or altruistic behavior directed toward another patient, placed in the next room. The only limit to the kinds of behavior which might be rewarded lies in the degree of mechanical ingenuitT of the experimenter. Lindsley reports that in some patients there has been marked clinical improvement.Personally I cannot help but be imprcs~cd by the description of one patient who had gone from a deteriorated chronic How C~ I BR oF HELP? state to being given free grounds privileges, this change being quite dearly associated with his interaction with the machine. Then the experimenter decided to study experimental extinction, which, put: in more personal terms, meansthat no matter how manythons~ncis of times the lever was pressed, no reward of any kind was forthcoming. The patient gradually regressed, grew untidy, uncommunicarive, and his grounds privilege had to be revoked. This (to me) pathetic incident would seemto indicate that even in a relationship to a machine, trustworthiness is important if the relationship is to be helpful. Still another interesting study of a manufactured rehtionship is being carried on by Harlow and his a.~oeiates (10), this time with monkeys. Infant monkeys,removedfrom their mothers almost immediately after birth, are, in one phase of the experiment, presented with two objects. One might be termed the "hard mother," a sloping cylinder of wire netting with a nipple from which the baby may feed. The other is a "soft mother," a similar cylinder madeof foam rubber and terry cloth. Even whenan infant gets all his food from the "hard mother" he dearly and increasingly prefers the "soft mother." Motion pictures show that he definitely "relates" to this object, playing with it, enjoying it, finding security in clinging to it whenstrange objects are near, and using that security as a homebase for venturing into the frightening world. Of the many interesting and challenging implications of this study, one seems reasonably clear. It is that no amountof direct food reward can take the place of certain perceived qualities which the infant appears to need and desire. TwoRECENT S~x~s Let me close this wide-ranging-- and perhaps perplexing -- sampiing of research studies with an account of two very recent investigations. The first is an experiment conducted by Ends and Page (5). Workingwith hardened chronic hospitalized alcoholics who had been committed to a state hospital for sixty days, they tried three different methods of group psychotherapy. The methodwhich they believed would be most effective was therapy based on a t-wofactor theory of learning; a client-centered approach was expected Characteristics of a Helping Relationship 47 to be second; a psychoanalytically oriented approach was expected to be least efficient. Their results showedthat the therapy based upon a learning theory approach was not only not helpful, but was somewhatdeleterious. The outcomeswere worse than those in the control group which had no therapy. The analytically oriented therapy produced some positive gain, and the client-centered group therapy was associated with the greatest amountof positive change. Follow-up data, extending over one and one-half years, confirmed the in-hospital findings, with the lasting improvement being greatest in the client-centered approach, next in the analytic, next the control group, and least in those handled by a learning theory approach. As I have puzzled over this study, unusual in that the approach to which the authors were committed proved least effective, I find a clue, I believe, in the description of the therapy based on learning theory (13). Essentially it consisted (a) of pointing out and labelling the behaviors which had proved unsatisfying, (b) of exploring obiectively with the client the reasons behind these behaviors, and (c) of establishing through re-education more effective problemsolving habits. But in all of this interaction the aim, as they formulated it, was to be impersonal. The therapist "permits as little of his ownpersonality to intrude as is humanlypossible." The "tberapist stresses personal anonymity in his activities, i.e., he must studiously avoid impressing the patient with his own(therapist’s) individual personality characteristics." To me this seems the most likely clue to the failure of this approach, as I try to interpret the facts in the light of the other research studies. To withhold one’s self as a person and to deal with the other person as an obiect does not have a high probability of being helpful. The final study I wish to report is one iest being completed by I-lalkides (9). She started from a theoretical formulation of mine regarding the necessary and sufficient conditions for therapeutic change (15). She hvpotbesizcd that there would be a significant relationship bet~veen the extent of constructive personality chan~e in the client and four counselor variablcs: (a) the degree of emp.lthic understanding of the client manifested by the counselor; (b) the degree of positive affective attitude (unconditional positive regard) manifested by the counselor toward the client; (e) the extent I I 48 HowCANI BE or HELP? which the counselor is genuine, his words matching his own interhal feeling; and (d) the extent to which the counselor’s response matches the client’s expression in the intensity of affect/re expression. To investigate these hypotheses she first selected, by multiple obiective criteria, a group of ten cases which could be classed as "most successful" and a group of ten "least successful" case~ She then took an early and late recorded interview from each of these cases. Ona randombasis she picked nine client-counselor interaction units -- a client statement and a counselor response-- from each of these interviews. She thus had nine early interactions and nine later ie~teractions from each case. This gave her several hundred units which were now phced in randomorder. The units from an early interview of an unsuccessful case might be followed by the units from a hte interview of a successful case, etc Three judges, who did not knowthe cases or their degree of success, or the source of any given unit, nowlistened to this material four different fime~ They rated each unit on a seven point scale, first as to the degree of empathy, second as to the counselor’s positive attitude toward the client, third as to the counselor’s congruence or genuineness, and fourth as to the degree to which the counselor’s response matchedthe emotional intensity of the client’s expression. I think all of us whoknewof the study regarded it as a very bold venture. Could iudges listening to single units of interaction possibly make any reliable rating of such subtle qualities as I have mentioned? And even if suitable reliability could he obtained, could eighteen couuselor-client interchanges from each case--a minute sampling of the hundreds or thousands of such interchanges which occurred in each case--possibly bear any relationship to the therapeutic outcome? The chance seemed slim. The findings are surprising. It proved possible to achieve high reliability, between the iudges, most of the inter-iudge correlations being in the 0.80%or 0.90%, except on the last variable. It was found that a high degree of empathic understanding was significantly associated, at a .001 level with the more successful cases. A high degree of unconditional positive regard was likewise associated with Characteristics of a Helping Relationship 49 the moresuccessful cases, at the .001 level. Eventhe rating of the courkselor’s genuineness or congruence--the extent to which his words matchedhis feelings-- was associated with the successful outcomeof the case, and again at the .001 level of significance. Only in the investigation of the matching intensity of affective expression were the results equivocal. It is of interest too that high ratings of these variables were not associated more significantly with units from later interviews than with units from early interviews. This means that the counselor’s attitudes were quite constant throughout the interviews. If he was highly empathic, he tended to be so from first to last. If he was lackhag in genuineness, this tended to be true of both early and late interviews. As with any study, this investigation has its limitations. It is concerned with a certain type of helping relationship, psychotherapy. It investigated only four variables thought to be significant. Perhaps there are manyothers. Nevertheless it represents a significant advance in the study of helping relationships. Let me try to state the findings in the simplest possible fashion. It seems to indicate that the quality of the counselor’s interaction with a client can be satisfactorily judged on the basis of a very small sampling of his behavior. It also meansthat if the counselor is congruent or transparent, so that Iris words are in line with his feelings rather than the two being discrepant; if the counselor likes the client, unconditionally; and if the counselor understands the essential feelings of the client as they seem to the client-- then there is a strong probabiLity that this will be an effective helping relationship. SOME COMMENTS These then are someof the studies whichthrow at least a measure of light on the nature of the helping relationship. They have investigated different facets of the problem. They have approached it from very different theoretical contexts. Theyhave used different methods. They are not directly comparable. Yet they seem to me to point to several statements which maybe madewith some assurance. It seemsclear that relationships which are helpful have different characteristics from relationships whichare unhelpful These $0 HowCANI BR oP HELp? di~erential characteristics have to do primarily with the attitudes of the helping person on the one hand and with the perception of the relationship by the "helpee" on the other. It is equally clear that the studies thus far madedo not give us any final answers as to what is a helping rehtiouship, nor how it is to be formed. HowCANI Catm~, HzrPn~Rgm~oNsmp? I believe each of us working in the field of humanrelationships has a similar problem in knowinghow to use such research knowledge. Wecannot slavishly follow such findings in a mechanical way or we destroy the personal qualities which these very studies show to be valuable. It seems to methat we have to use these studies, testing them against our ownexperience and forming new and further personal hypotheses to use and test in our own further personal relationships. So rather than try to tell you how yon should use the findings I have presented I should like to tell you the kind of questions which these studies and my own clinical experience raise for me, and some of the tentative and changing hypotheses which guide my behavior as I enter into what I hope may be helping relationships, whether with students, staff, family, or clients. Let me list a numberof these questions and considerations. 1. Can I be in some way which vail he perceived by the other person as trustworthy, as dependable or consistent in some deep sense? Both research and experience indicate that this is very important, and over the years I have found what I believe are deeper and better ways of answering this question. I used to feel that ff I fulfilled all the outer conditions of trustworthiness--keeping appointments, respecting the confidential nature of the interviews, et~ --and if I acted consistently the same during the interviews, then this condition would he fuLfilled. But experience drove homethe fact that to act consistently acceptant, for example, if in fact I waS feeling annoyed or skeptical or someother non-acceptant feeling, was certain in the long run to be perceived as inconsistent or untrustworthy. I have cometo recognize that being trustworthy does not demandthat I be rigidly consistent but that I be dependably real. The term "congruent" is one I have used to describe the way Characteristics of a Helping Relationship 51 I would like to be. By this I meanthat whatever feeling or attitude I amexperiencing would be matchedby my awareness of that attitude. Whenthis is true, then I am a unified or integrated person in that moment, and hence I can be whatever I deeply am. This is a reality which I find others experience as dependable. 2. A very closely related question is this: Can I be expressive enoughas a person that what I amwill be communicatedunambiguously? I believe that most of myfailures to achieve a helping relationship can be traced to unsatisfactory answers to these two questions. WhenI am experiencing an attitude of annoyancetoward another person but am unawareof it, then my communication contains contradictory messages. Mywords are giving one message, but I am also in subtle ways communicatingthe annoyance I feel and this confuses the other person and makeshim distrustful, though he too maybe unawareof what is causing the difficulty. Whenas a parent or a therapist or a teacher or an administrator I fail to listen to what is going on in me, fail because of myown defensiveness to sense my ownfeelings, then this kind of failure seems to result. It has madeit seem to me that the most basic learning for anyone who hopes to establish any kind of helping relationship is that it is safe to be transparently real. If in a given relationship I amreasonably congruent, if no feelings relevant to the relationship are hidden either to me or the other person, then I can be almost sure that the relationship will be a helpful one. One way of putting this which may seem strange to you is that if I can form a helping relationship to myself-- if I can be sensitively aware of and acceptant toward my ownfeelings- then the likelihood is great that I can form a helping relationship toward another. Now, aeceptantly to be what I am, in this sense, and to pernfit this to show through to the other person, is the most difficult task I know and one I never fully achieve. But to realize that this is my task has been most rewarding because it has helped me to find wl~at has gone wrong with interpersonal relationships which have become snarled and to put them on a constructive track again. It has meant that if I am to facilitate the personal growth of others in relation to me, then I must grow, and while this is often painful it is also enriching. $2 HowCamI BEol HmaP? 3. A third question is: Can I let myself experience positive attitudes toward this other person--attitudes of warmth,caring, liking, interest, respect? It is not easy. I find in myself, and feel that I often see in others, a certain amount of fear of these feelings. Weare afraid that if we let oursdves freely experience these positive feelings toward another we may be trapped by them. They may lead to demandson us or we maybe disappointed in our trust, and these outcomeswe fear. So as a reaction we tend to build up dismncebetween ourselves and others--aloofness, a ’~professional" attitude, an impersonal relationship. I feel quite strongly that one of the important reasons for the professionalizadon of every field is that it helps to keep this distance. In the cliuieal areas we develop elaborate diagnostic formulations, seeing the person as an object. In teaching and in administration we develop all kinds of evaluative procedures, so that again the person is perceived as an object. In these ways, I believe, we can keep ourselves from experiencing the caring which would exist if we reeogulzed the relationship as one between two persons. It is a real achievement when we can learn, even in certain relationships or at certain times in those relationships, that it is safe to care, that it is safe to relate to the other as a person for whomwe have positive feelings. 4. Another question the importance of which I have learned in my own experience is: Can I be strong enough as a person to be separate from the other? Can I be a sturdy respecter of my own feelings, myown needs, as well as his? Can I own and, if need be, express my own feelings as something belonging to me and separate from his feelings? AmI strong enough in my own separateness that I will not be downcastby his depression, frightened by his fear, nor engulfed by his dependency? Is my inner self hardy enough 1:o realize that I amnot destroyed by his anger, taken over by his need for dependence, nor enslaved by his love, but that I exist separate from him with feelings and rights of myown?WhenI can freely fed this strength of being a separate person, then I find that I can let myself go muchmore deeply in understanding and accepting him because I amnot fearful of losing myself. 5. The next question is closely related. AmI secure enough Cbaracteri~ics of a Helping Relatiom~p 53 within myself m permit him his separateness? Can I permit him m be what he is-- honest or deceitful, infantile or adult, despairing or over-confident? Can I give him the freedom to be? Or do I feel that he should follow myadvice, or remain somewhatdependent on me, or mold himself after me? In this connection I think of the inter¢sting small study by Farson (6) which found that the less well adjusted and less competent counselor tends to induce conformity to himself, to have clients whomodel themselves after him. On the other hand, the better adjusted and more competent counselor can interact with a client through manyinterviews without interfering with the freedom of the client to develop a personality quite separate from that of his therapist. I should prefer to be in this latter class, whether as parent or supervisor or counselor. 6. Another question I ask myself is: Can I let myself enter fully into the world of his feelings and personal meanings and see these as he does? Can I step into his private world so completely that I lose all desire to evaluate or judge it? Can I enter it so sensitively that I can move about in it freely, without trampling on meanings which are precious to him? Can I sense it so accurately that I can catch not only the meanings of his experience which are obvious to him, but those meanings which are only implicit, which he sees only dimly or as confusion? Can I extend this understanding without limit? I think of the client whosaid, "WheneverI find someonewho understands a part of me at the time, then it never fails that a point is reached where I knowthey’re not understanding me again . . . WhatI’ve looked for so hard is for someone to understand." For myself I find it easier to feel this kind of understanding, and to communicateit, to individual clients than to students in a class or staff membersin a group in which I am involved. There is a strong temptation to set students "straight," or to point out to a staff memberthe errors in his thinking. Yet whenI can permit myself to understand in these situations, it is mutually rewarding. And with clients in therapy, I am often impressed with the fact that even a minimal amount of empathic understanding--a bumbling and faulty attempt to catch the confused complexity of the client’s meaning -- is helpful, though there is no doubt that it is most helpful whenI can see and formulate dearly the meaningsin his experi- 54 How C~m I BR or ~ encing which for him have been unclear and tangled. 7. Still another issue is whether I can be acceptant of each facet of this other person which he presents to me. Can I receive him as he is? Can I communicatethis ammde?Or can I only receive conditionally, acceptant of some aspects of his feelings and silendy or openly disapproving of other aspects? It has been my experience that whenmyammdeis conditional, then he cannot change or grow in those respects in which I cannot fuUy receive him. And when--afterward and sometimes too late- I try to discover why I have been unable to accept him in every respect, I usually discover that it is because I have been frightened or threatened in myself by some aspect of his feelings. If I amto be morehelpful, then I must myself grow and accept myself in these respects. 8. A very practical issue is raised by the question: Can I act with sufficient sensitivity in the relationship that mybehavior win not be perceived as a threat? The work we are beginning to do in studying the physiological concomitants of psychotherapy confirms the research by Dittes in indicating howeasily individuals are threatened at a physiological levd. The psychogalvanic reflex--the measure of skin conductance -- takes a sharp dip when the therapist responds with some word which is just a little mongerthan the client’s feeling~ And to a phrase such as, "My yon do look upset," the needle swings almost off the paper. Mydesire to avoid even such minor threats is not due to a hypersensitivity about my client. It is simply due to the conviction based on experience that if I can free him as completely as possible from external threat, then he can begin to experience and to deal with the internal feelings and confliem which he finds threatening within himself. 9. A specific aspect of the preceding question but an important one is: Can I free him from the threat of external evaluation? In almost every phase of our lives-- at home, at school, at work -- we find ourselves under the rewards and punishments of external judgments. "That’s good"; "that’s naughty." "That’s worth an A"; "that’s a failure." "That’s good counseling"; "that’s poor counseb hag." Such judgments are a part of our lives from infancy to old age. I believe they have a certain social usefulness to institutions and organizations such as schools and profession~ Like everyone else Cbaracteristics of a Helping Relationsbip 55 I find myself all too often makingsuch evaluations. But, in my experience, they do not make for personal growth and hence I do not believe that they are a part of a helping relationship. Curiously enough a positive evaluation is as threatening in the long run as a negative one, since to inform someonethat he is good implies that you also have the right to tell him he is bad. So I have cometo feel that the more I can keep a relationship free of iudgmentand evaluation, the morethis will permit the other person to reach the point where he recognizes that the locus of evaluation, the center of responsibility, lies within himselL The meaning and value of his experience is in the last analysis something which is up to him, and no amount of external judgment can alter this. So I should like to work toward a relationship in which I am not, even in my own feelhags, evaluating him. This I believe can set him free to be a selfresponsible person. 10. One last question: Can I meet this other individual as a person who is in process of becoming, or will I be bound by his past and by mypast? If, in my encounter with him, I am dealing with him as an immaturechild, an ignorant student, a neurotic personality, or a psychopath, each of these concepts of mine limits what he can be in the relationship. Martin Buber, the existentialist philosopher of the University of Jerusalem, has a phrase, "confirming the other," which has had meaningfor me. He says "Confirmingmeans ¯ . . accepting the whole potentiality of the other .... I can recognize in him, know in him, the person he has been.., created to become.... I confirm him in myself, and then in him, in relation to this potentiality that.., can nowbe developed, can evolve" (3). If I accept the other person as something fixed, already diagnosed and classified, already shaped by his past, then I am doing my part to confirm this limited hypothesis. If I accept him as a process of becoming, then I am doing what I can to confirm or makereal his potentialities. It is at this point that I see Verplanck, Lindsley, and Skinner, working in operant conditioning, coming together with Buber. the philosopher or mystic. At least they cometogether in principle, in an odd way. If I see a relationship as only an opportunity to reinforce certain types of words or opinions in the other, then I How CAN I Bs oP HELp? tend to confirm him as an obiect-- a basically mechanical, manipu. ]able object. Andif I see this as his potentiality, he tends to act in ways which support this hypothesis. If, on the other hand, I see a relationship as an opportunity to "reinforce" all that he is, the person that he is with all his existent potentialities, then he tends to act in ways which support this hypothesis. I have then--to use Buber’s term--confirmed him as a living person, capable of creative inner development. Personally I prefer this second type of hypothesis. CoN~uslo~ In the early portion of this paper I reviewed some of the contributions which research is making to our knowledge about relationships. Endeavoringto keep that knowiedgein mind I then took up the kind of questions which arise from an inner and subjective point of view as I enter, as a person, into relationships. If I could, in myself, answer all the questions I have raised in the aff~tive, then I believe that any relationships in which I was involved would be helping relationships, wouldinvolve growth. But I cannot give a positive answer to most of these question~ I can only work in the direction of the positive answer. This has raised in my mind the strong suspicion that the optimal helping relationship is the kind of relationship created by a person who is psychologically mature. Or to put it in another way, the degree to which I can create relationships which facilitate the growth of others as separate persons is a measure of the growth I have achieved in myself. In somerespects this is a disturbing thought, but it is also a promising or challenging one. It would indicate that if I am interested in creating helping relationships I have a fascinathag lifetime job ahead of me, stretching and developing my potentialities in the direction of growth. I am left with the uncomfortable thought that what I have been working out for myself in this paper mayhave little relationship to your interests and your work. If so, I regret it. But I am at least partially comforted by the fact that all of us whoare working in the field of humanrelationships and trying to understand the basic orderliness of that field are engaged in the most crucial enterprise in today’s world. If we are thoughtfully trying to understand our tasks Cbaracterlstics of a Helping Relationship 57 as administrators, teachers, educational counselors, vocational counselors, therapists, then we are working on the problem which will determine the future of this phneL For it is not upon the physical sciences that the future will depend. It is upon us whoare trying to understand and deal with the interactions between humanbeings who are trying to create helping rehtinuships. So I hope that the questions I ask of myself witl be of some use to you in gaining understanding and perspective as you endeavor, in your way, to facilitate growth in your relationships. ~EFERENCES 1. Baldwin, A. L., J. Kalhom,and F. H. Breese. Patterns of parent behavior. PsychoL Monogr., 1945, 58, No. 268, 1-75. 2. Betz, B. J., and J. C. Whitehorn. The relationship of the therapist to the outcome of therapy in schizophrenia. Psychiat. Research Reports #Y. Research tec/miclueS in schizophrenia. Washington, D.C., American Psychiatric Association, 1956, 89-117. 3. Buber, M., and C. Rogers. Transcription of dialogue held April 18, 1957, Ann Arbor, Mich. Unpublishedmanuscript. 4. Dittes, J. E. Galvanic skin response as a measure of patient’s reaction to therapist’s permissiveness. ]. Ab’norm. ~ $oc. Psychol., 1957, .¢Y, 295-303. 5. Ends, E. J., and (2. W. Page. A study of three types of group psychotherapy with hospitalized male inebriates. Quar. ]. Stud. Alcohol, 1957. 18, 263-277. 6. Farson, R. E. Introjection in the psychotherapeutic relationship. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1955. 7. Fiedler. F. E. Quantitative studies on the role of therapists feelings toward their patients. In Mowrer,O. H. (Ed.), Psychotherapy: theory and research. NewYork: Ronald Press, 1953, Chap. 12. $8 How CAN I Bl oF Hm.P? 8. Greenspoon, J. The reinforcing effect of two spoken sounds on the frequency of two responses. Amer. ]. Psychol., 1955, 68, 409-416. 9. Halkides, G. An experimental study of four conditions necessary for therapeutic change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1958. 10. Harlow, H. F. The nature of love. ~lmer. Psycbol., 1958, 13, 673-685. 11. Heine, R. W. A comparison of patients’ reports on psychotherapeutic experience with psychoanalytic, nondirective, and A.dlerian therapists. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiw of Chicago, 1950. 12. Lindsley, O. R. Operant conditioning methodsapplied to research in chronic schizophrenia. Psycbiat. Research Reports #L Research techniques in schizophrenia. Washington, D.C.: American Psychlattic Association, 1956, 118-153. 13. Page, C. W., and E. J. Ends. A review and synthesis of the literature suggesting a psychotherapeutlc technique based on two-factor learning theory. Unpublished manuscript, loaned to the writer. 14. Qninn, IL D. Psychotherapists’ expressions as an index to the quality of early therapeutic relatiomhips. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1950. 15. Rogers, C~ R. The necessary and sufficient conditions of psychotherapeutic personality change. 1. Consult. Psychol., 1957, 2l, 95-103. 16. Seeman, J. Counselor judgments of therapeutic process and outcome. In Rogers, C. R., and R. F. Dymond,(Eds.). Psychotherapyand personality change. University of Chicago Press, 1954, Chap. 7. 17. Verplanck, W. S. The control of the content of conversation: reinforcement of statements of opinion. ]. Abnorra. d~ Soc. Psycbol., 1955, Yl, 668-676. 18. Whitehom,J. C., and B. J. Bet~ A study of psychotherapeutic re, lationships between physicians and schizophrenic patients. Amer. ]. Psychiat., 1954,111, 321-331. 4 What We Know About PsychotherapyObjectively and Subjectively In the spring o~ 1960 I was invited to the California lnaitute of Technology as a visitor in their "Leaders of America" program, sponsored by the Cal Tech YMCA,which arranges most of the cultural programsfor the Institute. As one pan of this four-day visit 1 ~oas asked to talk to a forum of faculty and staff. I was eager to speak of psychotherapy in a ’way which would make sense to physical scientists, and it seemed to me a summaryof the research findings in regard to therapy might communicate. On the other hand 1 ¯ wished to make very clear that the personal subjective relationship is at least an equally fundamental pan of therapeutic change. So l endeavored to present both sides. I have made some changes in the paper, but this is essentially what I presented to the audience at Cai Tech. 1 ,was pleased that the presentation seemedwell recek, ed, but ! httve been even more pleased that since that time a numberof individuals who have experienced therapy have read the manuscript and seem highly enthusiastic about the description (in the second half of the paper) of the client’s inner experience of therapy. This gratifies me, because I am especially eager to capture the way therapy feels and seems to the client. $9 60 How CAN I BE OF HELP? FTaZ FIZLO progress been made in theOF last~c~o~a~ decade inconsiderable measuring the outcomes of has therapy in the personality and behavior of the client. In the last two or three years additional progress has been madein identifying the basic conditions in the therapeutic rehtionship which bring about therapy, which facilitate personal development in the direction of psychological maturity. Another way of saying this is that we have made progress in determining those ingredients in a rehtionship which promote personal growth. Psychotherapy does not supply the motivation for such development or growth. This seems to be inherent in the organism, just as we find a simihr tendency in the humananimal to develop and mature physically, provided minima]ly satisfactory conditions are provided. But therapy does play an extremely important part in releasing and facilitating the tendency of the organism toward psychological development or maturity, when this tendency has been blocked. OBJECrrVZ K~ow~ocz I would like, in the ftrst part of this talk, to summarizewhat we knowof the conditions which facilitate psychological growth, and something of what we knowof the process and characteristics of that psychological growth. Let me explain what I meanwhenI say that I am going to summarize what we "know." I mean that I w’dl limit mystatements to those for which we have objective empirical evidence. For example, I will talk about the conditions of psychological growth. For each statement one or more studies could Wbct We KnowAbout Psychotherapy 61 be cited in which it was found that changes occurred in the individual whenthese conditions were present which did not occur in situations where these conditions were absent, or were present to a muchlesser degree. As one investigator states, we have madeprogress in identifying the primary change-producing agents which facilitate the alteration of personality and of behavior in the direction of personal development. It should of course be added that this knowledge, like all scientific knowledge, is tentative and surely incomplete, and is certain to be modified, contradicted in part, and supplemented by the painstaking work of the future. Nevertheless there is no reason to be apologetic for the small hut hard-won knowledge which we currently possess. I would like to give this knowledgewhich we have gained in the very briefest fashion, and in everyday hnguage. It has been found that personal change is facilitated whenthe psychotherapist is what he/s, whenin the relationship with his client he is genuine and without "front" or facade, openly being the feelinga and attitudes which at that momentare flowing/n ~ We have coined the term "congruence" to try to describe this condition. By this we meanthat the feelings the therapist is experiencing are available to him, available to his awareness, and he is able to live these feelings, be them, and able to communicatethem if appropriate. No one fully achieves this condition, yet the more the therapist is able to listen acceptantly to what is going on within himself, and the morehe is able to be the complexity of his feelings, without fear, the higher the degree of his congruence. To give a commonplaceexample, each of us senses this quality in people in a variety of ways. One of the things which offends us about radio and TVcommercials is that it is often perfectly evident from the tone of voice that the announcer is "putting on," phying a role, saying something he doesn’t feeL This is an exampleof incongruence. On the other hand each of us knows individuals whom we somehowtrust because we sense that they are being what they are, that we are dealing with the person himself, not with a polite or professional front. It is this quality of congruencewhich we sense whichresearch has found to be associated with successful therapy. How CAN I Bz oi Hn~? The more genuine and congruent the therapist in the relationship, the more probability there is that change in personality in the client will occur. Nowthe second condition. Whenthe therapist is experiencing a warm,positive and acceptant attitude toward what/s in the client, this facilitates change. It involves the therapist’s genuine willinghess for the client to be whatever feeling is going on in him at that moment,-- fear, confusion, pain, pride, anger, hatred, love, courage, or awe. It means that the therapist cares for the client, in a nonpossessive way. It meansthat he prizes the client in a total rather than a conditional way. By this I meanthat he does not simply accept the client whenhe is behaving in certain ways, and disapprove of him whenhe behaves in other way~It meansan outgoing positive feeling without reservations, without evaluations. The term we have cometo use for this is unconditional positive regard. Again research studies show that the more this attitude is experienced by the therapist, the morelikelihood there is that therapy will be successfuL The third condition we may call empathic understanding. When the therapist is sensing the feelings and personal meanings which the client is experiencing in each moment,whenhe can perceive these from "inside," as they seem to the client, and whenhe can successfully communicatesomething of that understanding to his client, then this third condition is fulfiUed. I suspect each of us has discovered that this kind of understanding is extremely rare. Weneither receive it nor offer it with any great frequency. Instead we offer another type of understanding which is very different. "I understand what is wrongwith you"; "I understand what makes you act that way"; or "I too have experienced your trouble and I reacted very differently"; these are the types of understanding which we usually offer and receive, an evaluative understanding from the outside. But when someone understands how it feels and seems to be me, without wanting to analyze me or iudge me, then I can blossom and grow in that climate. And research bearS out this common observation. Whenthe therapist can grasp the moment-to-moment experiencing which occurs in the inner world of the client as the client sees it and feels it, without losing the separ- What WeKnowAbout Psychotherapy 63 ateness of his ownidentity in this empathic process, then change is likely to occur. Studies with a variety of clients show that when these three conditions occur in the therapist, and whenthey are to somedegree perceived by the client, therapeutic movementensues, the client finds himself painfully but detinitely learning and growing, and both he and his therapist regard the outcomeas successfuL It seems from our studies that it is attitudes such as these rather than the therapist’s technical knowledgeand skill, which are primarily responsible for therapeutic change. THEDYN~ms o~ CHANGE You maywell ask, "But why does a person who is seeldng help change for the better whenhe is involved, over a period of time, in a relationship with a therapist which contains these elements? How does this comeabout?" Let me try very briefly to answer this question. The reactions of the client whoexperiences for a time the kind of therapeutic relatiomhip which I have described are a reciprocal of the therapist’s attitude~ In the first place, as he tinds someone else listening acceptantly to his feelings, he little by little becomes able to listen to himself. He begins to receive the communicationsfrom within himself--to realize that he/s angry, to recognize when he is frightened, even to realize whenhe is feeling courageous. As he becomes more open to what is going on within him he becomes able to listen to feelings which he has always denied and repressed. He can listen to feelings which have seemedto him so terrible, or so disorganizing, or so abnormal, or so shameful, that he has never been able to recognize their existence in himself. While he is learning to listen to himself he also becomes more acceptant of himself. As he expresses more and more of the hidden and awful aspects of himself, he finds the therapist showinga consistent and unconditional positive regard for him and his feeling~ Slowly he moves toward taking the same attitude toward himse/f, accepting himself as he is, and therefore ready to moveforward in the process of becoming. Andfinally as he listens more accurately to the feelings within, How C~ I Bz o~ H~? and becomes less evaluative and more acceptant toward himself, he also moves toward greater congruence. He finds it possible to move out from behind the facades he has used, to drop his defensive behaviors, and more openly to be what he truly is. As these changes occur, as he becomesmore self-aware, more self-acceptant, less defensive and more open, he finds that he is at last free to change and grow in the directions natural to the humanorganian. Tag PROCESS Nowlet me put something of this process in factual statements, each statement borne out by empirical research. Weknowthat the client shows movementon each of a numberof continua. Starting from wherever he may be on each continuum I will mention, he movestoward the upper end. In regard to feelings and personal meanings, he moves away from a state in which feelings are unrecognized, unowned, unexpressed. He movestoward a flow in which ever-changing feelings are experienced in the moment,knowingly and acceptingly, and may be accurately expressed. The process involves a change in the manner of his experiencing. Initially he is remote from his experiencing. An examplewould be the intellectualizing person whotalks about himself and his feelings in abstractions, leaving you wonderingwhat is actually going on within him. From such remoteness he moves toward an immediacy of experiencing in which he lives openly in lfts experiencing, and knowsthat he can turn to it to discover its current meanings. The process involves a loosening of the cognitive maps of experience. Fromconstruing experience in rigid ways, which are perceived as external facts, the client moves toward developing changing, loosely held construings of meaning in experience, constructs which are modifiable by each new experience. In general, the evidence shows that the process movesawayfrom fixity, remoteness from feelings and experience, rigidity of selfconcept, remoteness from people, impersonality of functioning. It moves toward fluidity, changingness, immediacyof feelings and experience, acceptance of feelings and experience, tentativeness of constructs, discovery of a changing self in one’s changing experience, Wb~WeKnowAbo~PsycBotbempy 65 realness and closeness of relationships, a unit~ and in~gr~rion of functioning. Weare continually learning more about this process by which change comes about, and I amnot sure that this very brief summary conveys muchof the richness of our findings. THERF~ULT$ OFTHERAPY But let me turn to the outcomes of therapy, to the relatively last. ing changes which occur. As in the other things I have said I will limit myself to statements borne out by research evidence. The client changes and reorganizes his concept of himself. He moves awayfrom perceiving himself as unacceptable to himself, as unworthy of respect, as having to live by the standards of others. He movestoward a conception of himself as a person of worth, as a serf-directing person, able to form his standards and values upon the basis of his ownexperience. He develops muchmore positive attitudes toward himself. One study showed that at the beginning of therapy current attitudes toward self were four to one negative, but in the final fifth of therapy self-attitudas were twice as often positive as negative. He becomesless defensive, and hence more open to his experience of himself and of others. He becomes more realistic and differentiated in his perceptions. He improves in his psychological adiustment, whether this is measured by the Rorschach test, the Thematic Apperception Test, the counselor’s rating, or other indices. His aims and ideals for himself change so that they are more achievable. The initial discrepancy between the self that he is and the self that he wants to be is greatly diminished. Tension of all types is reduced- physiological tension, psychological discomfort, anxiety. He perceives other individuals with more realism and more acceptance. He describes his own behavior as being more mature and, what is more important, he is seen by others whoknow him well as behaving in a more mature fashion. Not only are these changes shownby various studies to occur during the period of therapy, but careful follow-up studies conducted six to eighteen months following the conclusion of therapy indicate that these changes persist. Perhaps the facts I have ~ven will makeit dear why"I feel that 66 How ~ I BE or I-Im~ we are approaching the point where we can write a genuine equation in this subtle area of interpersonal rehtionships. Using all of the research findings we have, here is a tentative formulation of the crude equation which I believe contains the facts. The more that the client percdves the therapist as real or genuine, as empathic, as having an unconditional regard for him, the more the client will moveawayfrom a static, fixed, unfeeling, impersonal type of functioning, and the more he wiU movetoward a way of ¯ functioning markedby a fluid, changing, acceptant experiencing of differentiated personal feelings. The consequence of this movement is an alteration in personality and behavior in the direction of psychic health and maturity and more realistic relationships to serf, others, and the environment. Tn~ SUBJECTIVE l~crtrgg Up to this point I have spoken of the process of counseling and therapy objectively, stressing what we know, writing it as a crude equation in which we can at least tentatively put down the specific terms. But let me now try to approach it from the inside, and without ignoring this faetual knowledge, present this equation as it occurs subjectively in both therapist and client. I want to do this because therapy in its occurrence is a highiy personal, subjective experience. This experience has qualities quite different from the objective characteristics it possesses when viewed extemaUy. THE THERAPlST’S EXPERIENCE To the therapist, it is a new venture in relating. He feels, "Here is this other person, my client I’m a li~e afraid of him, afraid of the depths in him as I ama little afraid of the depths in myself, yet as he speaks, I begin to feel a respect for him, to feel my kinship to him. I sense how frightening his world is for him, how tightly he U’ies to hold it in place. I would like to sense his feelings, and I would like him to knowthat I understand his feelings. I would like him to knowthat I stand with him in his tight, constricted little world, and that I can look upon it relatively unafraid. Perhaps I can make Wb~We KnowAbo~ Psycbotbcv~y 67 it a safer world for him. I would like my feelings in t~ rehtionship with him to be as clear and transparent as possible, so that they are a discernible reality for him, to which he can return again and ags~ I would like to go with him on the fearful journey into himself, into the buried fear, and hate, and love which he has never been able to let flow in him. I recognize that this is a very humanand unpredictable journey for me, as well as for him, and that I may, without even knowing my fear, shrink away within myself, from some of the feelings he discovers. To this extent I know I will be limited in my ability to help him. I realize that at times his own fears may makehim perceive me as uncaring, as rejecting, as an intruder, as one whodoes not understand. I want fully to accept these feelings in him, and yet I hope also that my own real feelings will show through so clearly that in time he cannot fail to perceive them. Most of all I want him to encounter in me a real person. I do not need to be uneasy as to whether myown feelings are ’thetapeuti~’ What I am and what I feel are good enough to be a basis for therapy, if I can transparently be what I amand what I feel in rehtionship to him. Then perhaps he can be what he is, openly and without fear." Taz CLI~t~r’s EXPER[EN(~ Andthe client, for his part, goes through far more complex sequences which can only be suggested. Perhaps schematically his feelings change in some of these wayg ’Tm afraid of him. 1 want help, hut I don’t know whether to trust him. He might see things which I don’t know in myself-- frightening and bad elementS. He seems not to be judging me, but I’m sure he is. I can’t tell him what really concerns me, but I can tell him about somepast experiences which are related to myconcern. He seems to understand those, so I Can reveal a bit more of myself. "But now that I’ve shared with him some of this bad side of me, he despises me. I’m sure of it, but it’s strange I can find little evidence of i~ Do you suppose that what I’ve told him isn’t so had? h it possible that I need not be ashamed of it as a part of me? I no longer feel that he despises me. It makes me feel that I want to go further, exploring me, perhaps expressing more of myself. I lind 68 HowCJmI Bz ov I-I~p? him a sort of companion as I do this -- he seems really to understand. "But now I’m getting frightened again, and this time deeply frightened. I didn’t realize that exploring the unknownrecesses of myseff would make me feel feelings I’ve never experienced before. It’s very strange because in one way these aren’t new feelings. I sense that they’ve always been there. But they seem so bad and disturbing I’ve never dared m let them flow in me. And now as I llve these feelings in the hours with him, I feel terribly shaky, as though my world is failing apart. It used to be sure and firm. Now it is loose, permeable and vulnerable. It isn’t pleasant to feel things I’ve always been frightened of befor~ It’s his faul~ Yet curiously I’m eager to see him and I feel more safe whenI’m with him. "I don’t knowwhoI amany more, but sometimeswhenI feel things I seem solid and real for a momen~I’m troubled by the contradicrions I find in myself--I act one way and feel another--I think one thing and feel another. It is very disconcerting. It’s also sometimesadventurous and exhilarating to be trying to d~over who I am. SometimesI catch myserf feeling that perhaps the person I am is worth being, whatever that meang "I’m beginning to find it very satisfying, though often painful, to share iust what it is I’m feeling at this moment.You know, it is reaUy helpful to try to listen to myseff, to hear what is going on in me. I’m not so frightened any more of what is going on in me. It seems pretty trust-worthy. I use someof my hours with him to dig deep into myself to knowwhat I amfeeling. It’s scary work, but I want to know. AndI do trust him most of the time, and that helps. I feel pretty vulnerable and raw, but I knowhe doesn’t want to hurt me, and I even believe he cares. It occurs to meas I try to let myself downand down, deep into myself, that maybeif I could sense what is going on in me, and could realize its meaning, I would knowwho I am, and I would also know what to do. At least I feel this knowing sometimes with him. "I can even teU him just howI’m feeling toward him at any given momentand instead of this killing the relationship, as I used to fear, it seems to deepen it. Do you suppose I could be myfeelings with other people also? Perhaps that wouldn’t be too dangerous either. "You know, I feel as if I’m floating along on the current of fife, What We Know About Psychotherapy 69 very adventurously, being me. I get defeated sometimes, I get hurt sometimes, but I’m learning that those experiences ate not fatal I don’t know exactly ~bo I am, but I can feel my reactions at any given moment, and they seem to work out pretty well as a basis for my" behavior from momentto moment.Maybethis is what it means m be me. But of course I can only do this because I feel safe in the relationship with mytherapist. Or could I be myself this wayoutside of this relationship? I wonder. I wonder. Perhaps I could." What I have just presented doesn’t happen rapidly. It may take years. It may not, for reasons we do not understand very well, happen at alL But at least this may suggest an inside view of the factual picture I have tried to present of the process of psychotherapy as it occurs in both the therapist and his client. PART III The Process of Becoming a Person I have observed the process by ~loich an individual gro~s and changes in a therapeutic relationship. Y Some of the Directions Evident in Therapy In Part II, although there are some Imef descriptions of the process of change in the client, the major focus "was on the relationship ,which makes these changes possible. In this and the follo~ng chapter, the material deals in a muchmore speci~w "way ~ith the nature of the client’s experience of change in himself. 1 have a personal fondness for this chapter. It "was ¢~’itten in 19Yl-Y2, at a time "when I ~as making a real effort to let myself sense, and then express, the phenomena~hich seemed central to therapy. My book, Client-Centered Therapy, had just been published, but I ,was already dissatisfied ,with the chapter on the process of therapy, ,which had of course been ,written about two years previously. 1 .wanted to find a mare dynamic.way of communicating ,what happens to the person. So I took the case of one client "whose therapy had had much significance for me, one ~hicb 1 ¢aas also studying from a research point of ~ievo, and using this as a basis, tried to express the tentative perceptions of the therapeutic process "which "were emerging in me. I felt very bold, and very unsure of myself, in pointing out that in successful therapy clients seem to come to have real affection for themselves. I felt even more uncertain in voicing the hypothesis that the core of man’s nature is essentially positive. I could not then fore73 74 TuR I~ocass oF BEcoMnva A l~o~ see that botb o~ these points ~vould rece~ue increasing su~ort fror~ my e~perie~oe, THEPROCESS OF PSYCHOTHERAPy, aS we have come to know it from a client-centered orientation, is a unique and dynamic experi. ence, different for each individual, yet exhibiting a lawfulness and order which is astonishing in its generality. As I have becomeincreasingly impressed by the inevitability of manyaspects of this process, I likewise grow increasingly annoyed at the type of questions which are so commonlyraised in regard to it: "Will it cure a compulsion neurofis?" "Surely you don’t claim that it will erase a basic psychotic condition?" "Is it suitable for dealing with marital problems?" "Does it apply to stutterers or homosexuals?""Are the cures permanent?" These questions, and others like them, are understandable and legitimate just as it would be reasonable to inquire whether gammarays would be an appropriate cure for ehilbhing They are however, it seems to me, the wrong questions to ask if we are trying to further a deep knowledgeof what psychotherapy is, or what it may accomplish. In this chapter I should like to ask what appears to me a sounder question in regard to this fascinating and hwful process we term therapy, and to attempt a partial answer. Let me introduce my question in this way. Whether by chance, by insightful understanding, by scientific knowledge, by artistry in humanrehionships, or by a combination of all of these elements, we have learned how to initiate a describable process which appears to have a core of sequential, orderly events, which tend to be similar from one client to another. Weknow at ]east something of the attitudinal conditions for getting this process under way. Weknow that if the therapist holds within himself attitudes of deep respect and full acceptance for this client as he is, and similar attitudes toward the client’s potentialities for dealing with himself and his situations; if these attitudes are suffused with a sufficient warmth, which tranSFromPsychotherapy: Theory and Researcb, edited by O. Hobart Mow-ter. Copyright 1955 The Ronald Press Company.Reprinted by permission of the publisher. Directions in Therapy ?i forms them into the most profound type of liking or affection for the core of the person; and if a level of communicationis reached so that the client can begin to perceive that the therapist understands the feelings he is experiencing and accepts him at the full depth of that understanding, then we maybe sure that the process is already initiated. Then, instead of trying to insist that this process serve the ends we have in mind (no matter how laudable those goals maybe), let us ask the only question by which science can genuinely be advanced. This question is: ’%Vhatis the nature of this process, what seem to be its inherent characteristics, what direction or direetiom does it take, and what, if any, are the natural end-points of the process?" WhenBenjaminFranklin observed the spark coming from the key on his kite-string, he did not, fortunately, fall under the spell of its immediate and praerical use~ Instead, he began to inquire into the basic process which madesuch a phenomenonpossible. Thoughmanyof the answers which were put forward were full of specific errors, the search was fruitful, because the right question was being asked. Thus I am makinga plca that we ask the same question of psychotherapy, and ask it with open mind--that we endeavor to describe, study, madunderstand the basic process which underlies therapy, rather than attempting to warp that process to fit our clinical needs, or our preconceived dogma, or the evidence from some other field. Let us patiently examineit for what it/s, in /tself. I have recently made an attempt to begin such a description of client-centered therapy (3). I will not repeat this description here, except to say that from the clinical and research evidence there seemto emergecertain persistent characteristics in the process: the increase in insightful statements, in maturity of repotted behavior, in positive attitudes, as therapy progresses; the changes in perception of, and acceptance of, the self; the incorporation of previously denied experience into the self-structure; the shift in the locus of evaluation from outside to inside the self; the changes in the therapeutic relatiouship; and characteristic changes in personality structure, in behavior, and in physiological condition. Faulty as someof these descriptions mayprove to be, they are an attempt to understand the process of client-centered therapy in its ownterms, as revealed in clinical experience, in electrically recorded verbatim cases, and in the Taz Paocsss or BSCOMmO a PmlsoN forty or more research studies which have been completed in this area. Mypurpose in this paper is to push out beyond this material and to formulate certain trends in therapy which have received less emphasi~ I should like to describe some of the directions and ertd points which appear to be inherent in the therapeutic proce~_which we o have only recently begun to discern with clarity, which seem t represent significant learnings, and on which research is, as yet, nonexistent. In an attempt to convey meanings more adequately I shall ffse~ill~’mative material from recorded interviews from one case. I shall also limit my discussion to the process of client-centered therapy since I have reluctandy cometo concede the possibility that the process, directions, and end points of therapy maydiffer in different therapeutic orientations. TnEExvgamNc~o or TmgPo-rmcn~SELF One aspect of the process of therapy whichis evident in all cases, might be termed the awareness of experience, or even "the experiencing of experience." I have here hbelled it as the experiencing of the self, though this also falls short of being an accurate term. In the i security of the relationship with a client-centered therapist, in the i absence of any actual or implied threat to self, the client can let himi self examine various aspects of his experience as they actually feel to him, as they are apprehended through his sensory and visceral equipment, without distorting them to fit the existing concept of self. Manyof these prove to be in extreme contradiction to the concept of self, and could not ordinarily be experienced in their fullness, but in this safe relationship they can be permitted to seep through into awareness without distortion. Thus they often follow the schematic pattern, "I am thus and so, but I experience this feeling which is very inconsistent with what I am"; "I love my parents, but I experience some surprising bitterness toward them at times"; "I am really no good, but sometimesI seem to feel that I’m better than everyone else." Thus at first the expression is that ’¢I am a self which is different from a part of my experience." Later this changes to the tentative pattern, "Perhaps I am several quite different selves, or perImps my serf contains more contradictions than I had dreamed." still Directlo~ in Therapy 7"1 later the pattern changes to some such pattern as this: "I was rare that I could not be my experience--it was too contradictory-but now I am beginning to believe that I can be all of my experi)) ence. Perhaps something of the nature of this aspect of therapy maybe conveyed from two excerpts from the case of Mrs. Oak- Mr~Oak was a housewife in her late thirties, whowas having difficulties in marital and family relationships whenshe came in for therapy. Unlike many clients, she had a keen and spontaneous interest in the processes which she felt going on within herself, and her recorded interviews contain muchmaterial, from her ownframe of reference, as to her perception of what is occurring. She thus tends to put into words what seems to be implicit, but unverhalized, in manyclienm For this reason, most of the excerpts in this chapter will be taken from this one case. Froman early portion of the fifth interview comesmaterial which describes the awareness of experience which we have been discussing. Client: It all comespretty vagu~ But you knowI keep, keep having the thought occur to me that this whole process for meis Idnd of like examining pieces of a jig-saw puzzle. It seems to meL I’m in the process nowof examining the individual pieces whichreally don’t have too muchmeaning. Probably handling them, not even beginning to think of a par’term That keeps comingto me. And it’s interesting to me because I, I really don’t like jig-saw puzzles. They’ve always irritated me. But that’s my feeling. And I mean I pick up little pieces (she gestures throughout this conversation to illustrate her statements) with absolutely no meaningexcept I meanthe, the feeling that you get from ~nply handling them without seeing them as a pattern, but just from the touch, I probably feel, well it is going to fit someplace here. Therapist: And that at the momentthat, that’s the proce~ just getting the feel and the shape and the configuration of the different pieces with a little hit of background feeling of, yeeh they’ll probably fit somewhere,but most of the attention’s focused right on, "Whatdoes this feel like? And what’s its texture?" 78 Tag l~oczss oF BzcoMmoA Pv.aaoN C: That’s right. There’s almost something physical in it. A, a--T: Youcan’t quite descn’oe it without using your hands. A real, C: That’s right. Again almost senseit’s, in-- it’s a feeling of being very objective ’ a sensuous and yet I’ve never been quite so close to myself. 7"." Almost at one and the same time standing off and looking at yourself and yet somehowbeing closer to yourself that way than-C: M-hm.And yet for the first time in months I am not thinking about my problems. I’m not actually, I’m not working on them. T: I get the impression you don’t sort of sit downto work on "ray problems." It isn’t that feeling at all. C: That’s right. That’s right. I suppose what I, I mean actually is that I’m not fitting downto put this puzzle together as, as something, I’ve got to see the picture. It, it maybe that, it may be that I am actually enjoying this feeling process. Or I’m certainly learning something. T: At least there’s a sense of the immediate goal of getting that feel as being the thing, not that you’re doing this in order to see a picture, but that it’s a, a satisfaction of really getting acquainted with each piece. Is that-C: That’s it. That’s it. And it still becomes that sort of sensuousness, that touching. It’s quite interesting. Sometimesnot entirely pleasant, I’m sure, butT: A rather different sort of experience. C: Yes. Quite. This excerpt indicates very clearly the letting of material come into awareness, without any attempt to ownit as part of the self, or to relate it to other material held in consciousness. It is, to put it as accurately as possible, an awareness of a wide range of experiences, with, at the moment, no thought of their relation to self. Later it maybe recognized that what was being experienced may all Direc~o~in Tkerapy 79 becomea part of self. Thus the heading of this section has been termed "The Experiencing of the Potential Self." The fact that this is a newand unusual form of experience is expressed in a verbally confused but emotionally clear portion of the sixth interview. C: Uh, I caught myself thinking that during these sessions, ulh I’ve been sort of singing a song. Nowthat sounds vague and uh-not actually singing--sort of a song without any music. Probably a kind of poemcomingout. And I like the idea, I meanit’s just sort of come to me without anything built out of, of anything. Andin -- following that, it came, it came this other kind of feeb ing. Well, I found myself sort of asking myself, is that the shape that cases take? Is it possible that I am just verbalizing and, at times kind of becomeintoxicated with my ownverbalizations? Andthen uh, following this, came, well, amI just taking up your time? Andthen a doubt, a doubt. Then something else occurred to me. Uh, from whenceit came, I don’t know, no actual logical kind of sequence to the thinking. The thought struck me: We’re doing bits, uh, we’re not overwhelmedor doubtful, or show concern or, or any great interest when, whenblind people learn to read with their fingers, Braille. I don’t know-- it maybe just sort of, it’s all mixed up. It maybe that’s something that I’m experiencing now. T: Let’s see if I can get someof that, that sequence of feelings. First, sort of as though you’re, and I gather that first one is a fairly positive feeling, as though maybeyou’re kind of creating a poem here- a song without music somehowbut something that might be quite creative, and then the, the feeling of a lot of skepticisrn about that. "MaybeI’m just saying words, just being carried off by words that I, that I speak, and maybeit’s all a lot of baloney, really." And then a feeling that perhaps you’re almost learning a new type of experiencing which would be just as radically new as for a blind person to try to makesense out of what he feels with his fingertips. C: M-hm.M-hm.(Pause) ... And I sometimes think to myself, well maybewe could go into this particular incident or that par- SO Taz PRoc~ oF B~coMmQ A Pm~oN ticular incident And then somehowwhenI comehere, there is, that doesn’t hold true, it’s, it seems false. Andthen there just seems to be this flow of words which somehowaren’t forced and then occasionally this doubt creeps in. Well, it sort of takes form of a, maybeyou’re just making music .... Perhaps that’s why I’m doubtful today of, of this whole thing, because it’s something that’s not forced. Andreally I’m feeling that what I should do is, is sort of systematize the thing. Oughta work harder and-T: Sort of a deep questioning as to what am I doing with a serf that isn’t, isn’t pushing to get things done, solved? (Pause) C: Andyet the fact that I, I really like this other kind of thing, this, I don’t know, call it a poignant feeling, I mean--I felt things that I never felt before. I like that, too. Maybethat’s the way to do it. I just don’t know today. Here is the shift which seems almost invariably to occur in therapy which has any depth. It may be represented schematically as the client’s feeling that "1 came here to solve problems, and nowI find myself just experiencing myself." And as with this client this shift is usually accompaniedby the intellectual formulation that it is wrong, and by an emotional appreciation of the fact that it "feels good." Wemay conclude this section saying that one of the fundamental directions taken by the process of therapy is the free experiencing of the actual sensory and visceral reactions of the organism without too muchof an attempt to relate these experiences to the self. This is usually accompaniedby the conviction that this material does not belong to, and cannot be organized into, the self. The end point of this process is that the client discovers that he can be his experience, with all of its variety and surface contradiction; that he can formulate himself out of his experience, instead of trying to impose a formnhtion of self upon his experience, denying to awareness those elements which do not fit. THEFULLF~PERIENCING OF ANAFFECTIONAL RELATIONSHIP One of the elements in therapy of which we have more recently becomeaware is the extent to which therapy is a learning, on the Directions in Ther~y 81 part of the client, to accept fully and freely and without fear the positive feelings of another. This is not a phenomenonwhich clearly occurs in every case. It seems particularly true of our longer cases, but does not occur uniformly in these. Yet it is such a deep experience that we have begun to question whether it is not a highly significant direction in the therapeutic process, perhaps occurring at an unverbalized level to some degree in all successful cases. Before discussing this phenomenon,let us give it some body by citing the experience of Mrs. Oak. The experience struck her rather suddenly, between the twenty-ninth and thirtieth interview, and she spends most of the latter interview discussing ic She opens the thirtieth hour in his way. C: Well I madea very remarkable discovery. I knowit’s-(laughs) I found out that you actually care how this thing goes. (Both laugh) It gave me the feeling, it’s sort of well -- "maybeI’ll let you get in the act," sort of thing. It’s-- again you see, on an examination sheet, I would have had the correct answer, I mean-but it suddenly dawnedon me that in the-- client-ccunselor kind of thing, you actually care what happens to this thing. Andit was a revelation, a--not that. That doesn’t describe it It was a--well, the closest I can cometo it is a kind of relaxation, a-not a letting down, but a -- (pause) more of a straightening out without tension if that means anything. I don’t know. T: Soundsas though it isn’t as though this was s new idea, but it was a new exper/ence of really feeling that I ddd care and if I get the rest of that, sort of a willingness on your part to let me care. C: Yes. This letting the counselor and his warminterest into her life was undoubtedly one of the deepest features of therapy in this case. In an interview following the conchsion of therapy she spontaneously mentions this experience as being the outstanding one. Whatdoes it mean? The phenomenonis most certainly not one of transference and countertransference. Someexperienced psychologists who had undergone psychoanalysis had the opportunity of observing the de- TH~ I~o~ Or B~OMmQA I~SON velopment of the rehtionship in gnother case than the one cited. They were the first to obicct to the use of the terms transference and countertransference to describe the phenomena.The gist of their remarks was that this is something which is mutual and appropriate, where transference or countertransference are phenomenawhich are characteristically one-wayand inappropriate to the realiries of the situation. Certainly one reason why this phenomenais occurring more frequently in our experience is that as therapists we have becomeless afraid of our positive (or negative) feelings toward the client. therapy goes on the therapist’s feeling of acceptance and respect for the client tends to change to something approaching awe as he sees the valiant and deep struggle of the person to be himself. There is, I think, within the therapist, a profound experience of the underlying commonality-should we say brotherhood--of man. As a result he feeis toward the client a warm, positive, affectional reaction. This poses a problem for the client whooften, as in this case, finds it di/ticult to accept the positive feeling of another. Yet once accepted the inevitable reaction on the part of the client is to relax, to let the warmth of liking by another person reduce the tension and fear involved in facing life. But we are getting ahead of our client. Let us examine someof the other aspects of this experience as it occurred to her. In earlier interviews she had talked of the fact that she did not love humanity, and that in somevague and stubborn wayshe felt she was right, even though others would regard her as wrong. She mentions this again as she discusses the way this experience has clarified her attitudes toward others. C: The next thing that occurred to me that I found myself thinking and still thinking, is somehow--and I’m not clear why -- the same kind of a caring that I get whenI say "I don’t love humanity." Whichhas always sort of-- I meanI was always convinced of it. So I mean, it doesn’t--I knewthat it was a good thing, see. And I think I clarified it within myself--what it has to do with this situation, I don’t know. But I found out, no, I don’t love, but I do care terribly. Directions in Th6~’apy $3 T: M-hm.M-hm. I see .... I C: ¯ ¯ ¯ It might be expressed better in saying I care terribly what happens. But the caring is a--takes form--its structure is in understanding and not wanting to be taken in, or to contribute to those things which I feel are faLse and -- It seems to me that in-in loving, there’s a kind of final factor. If you do that, you’ve sort of done enough. It’s aT: That’s it, sort of. C: Yeah. It seems to me this other thing, this caring, which isn’t a good term--I mean, probably we need something else to describe this kind of thing. To say it’s an impersonal thing doesn’t meananything because it isn’t impersonaLI meanI feel it’s very mucha part of a whole. But it’s something that somehowdoesn’t stop .... It seems to me you could have this feeling of loving humanity, loving people, and at the same time-- go on contributing to the factors that makepeople neurotic, makethem ill m where, what I feel is a resistance to those thing~ T: Youcare enough to want to understand and to want to avoid contributing to anything that would make for more neuroticism, or more of that aspect in humanlif~ C: Yes. Andit’s-- (pause). Yes, it’s something along those lines. ¯.. Well again, I have to go back to howI feel about this other thing. It’s-- I’m not really caUed npon to give of myself in a-sort of on the auction block. There’s nothing final... It sometimes bothered me whenI--I would have to say to myself, "I don’t love humanity," and yet, I always knewthat there was something positive. That I was probably right. And--I may be all off the beamnow, but it seems to me that, that is somehowtied up in the -- this feeling that I -- I have now, into howthe therapeutic value can carry through. Now,I couldn’t tie it up, I couldn’t tie it in, but it’s as close as I can come to explaining to myself, my--well shall I say the learning process, the follow through on my realization that-- yes, you do care in a given situation. It’s just that simple. And I hadn’t been aware of it before. I might have dosed this door and walked out, and in d~zssing 84 THEPa~ OFBECOMn~ A Pz]~qol4’ therapy, said, yes, the counselor must feel thus and so, bur. I mean, I hadn’t had the dynamicexperience. In this portion, though she is stzuggling to describe her own feeling, it would seemthat what she is saying would be characteristic of the therapist’s attitude toward the client as well. His attitude, at its best, is devoid of the qu/d pro quo aspect of most of the experiences we call love. It is the simple outgoing humanfeeling of one individual for another, a feeling, it seems to mewhich is even more basic than sexual or parental feeling. It is a caring enough about the person that yon do not wish to interfere with his development, nor to use him for any self-aggrandizing goals of your own. Your sati~ faction comes in having set him free to grow in his own fashion. Our cliem goes on to discuss howhard it has been for her in the past to accept any help or positive feeling from others, and howthis attitude is changing. C: I have a feeling.., that yon have to do it pretty much yourself, but that somehowyou ought to be able to do that with other people. (She mentions that there have been "countless" times ~vben she might have accepted personal ~varrrrth and kindliness from others.) I get the feeling that I just was afraid I would be devastate& (She returns to talking about the counseling ~elf and bet feeling toward it.) I meanthere’s been this tearing through the thing myself. Almostto--I mean, I felt it--I meanI tried to verbalize it on occasion--a kind of--at times almost not wanting you to restate, not wanting you to reflect, the thing is mine. Course all right, I can say it’s resistance. But that doesn’t meana damnthing to me now .... The--I think in--in relationship to this particular thing, I mean, the--probably at times, the strongest feeling was, it’s mine, it’s mine. I’ve got to cut it down myself. See? T: It’s an experience that’s awfully hard to put downaccurately into words, and yet 1 get a sense of difference here in this relationship, that from the feeling that "this is mine," "I’ve got to do it," "I am doing it," and so on, to a Somewhatdifferent feeling that ’q could let you in." Directions in Therapy 85 C: Yeah. Now. I mean, that’s--that it’s--well, it’s sort of, shall we say, volumetwo. Ifs--ifs a--weli, sort of, well, I’m still in the thing alone, but I’m not-- see -- I’m -T: M-hra. Yes, that paradox sort of sums it up, doesn’t it? C: Yeah. T: In all of this, there is a feeling, it’s still--every aspect of my experience is mine and that’s kind of inevitable and necessary and so on. And yet that isn’t the whole picture either. Somehowit can be shared or another’s interest can comein and in someways it is new. C: Yeah. And it’s--it’s as though, that’s how it should be. I mean, that’s how it-- has to be. There’s a-- there’s a feeling, "and this is good." I mean, it expresses, k clarifies it for me. There’s a feeling--in this caring, as though--you were sort of standing back--standing off, and if I want to sort of cut through m the thing, it’s a -- a slashing of-- oh, tall weeds, that I can do it, and you can-- I mean you’re not going to be disturbed by having to walk through it, too. I don’t know. And it doesn’t make sense. I meanT: Except there’s a very real sense of rightness about this feeling that you have, hm? C: M-hm. Mayit not be that this excerpt portrays the heart of the process of socialization? To discover that it is not devastating to accept the positive feeling from another, that it does not necessarily end in hurt, that it actually "feels good" to have another person with you in your struggles to meet life-- this maybe one of the most profound learnings encountered by the individual whether in therapy or not. Somethingof the newness, the non-verbal level of this experience is described by Mrs. Oak in the dosing momentsof this thirtieth interview. C: I’m experiencing a new type, a--probably the only worthwhile kind of learning, a--I know I’ve--I’ve often said what I 86 T~ I~oc~s oF B~co~mc A PzmsoN knowdoesn’t help me here. What I meant is, my acquired knowledge doesn’t help me. But it seems to methat the learning process here has been-- so dynamic, I mean, so much a part of the-- of everything, I mean, of me, that if I just get that out of it, it’s some~ thing, which, I mean--I’m wondering if 1’11 ever be able to straighten out into a sort of acquired knowledgewhat I have experienced here. T: In other words, the kind of learning that has gone on here has been something of quite a different sort and quite a different depth; very vital, very real. Andquite worthwhile to you in and of itself, bat the question you’re asking is: WiUI ever have a clear intellectual picture of what has gone on at this somehowdeeper kind of learning level? C: M-hm.Something like that. Those who would apply to therapy the so-called hws of learning derived from the memorization of nonsense syllables would do well to study this excerpt with care. Learning as it takes place in therapy is a total, organismic, frequently non-verhal type of thing which mayor maynot follow the sameprinciples as the intellectual learnhag of trivial material which has little relevance to the self. This, however, is a digression~ Let us conclude this section by rephrasing its essence. It appears possible that one of the characteristics of deep or significant therapy is that the client discovers that it is not devastating to admit fully into his own experience the positive feeling which another, the therapist, holds toward him. Perhaps one of the reasons why this is so difficult is that essentially it involves the feeling that "I am worthy of being liked." This we shall consider in the following section. For the present it may be pointed out that this aspect of therapy is a free and full experiencing of an affectional relationship which may be put in generalized terms as follows: "I can permit someoneto care about me, and can folly accept that caring within myself. This permits me to recognize that I care, and care deeply, for and about others." D/re~t/o~/n Therapy 87 TH~ L~G oF ONE’S SELV In various writinge and researches that have been published regarding client-centered therapy there has been a stress upon the acceptance of self as one of the directions and outcomesof therapy. Wehave established the fact that in successful psychotherapy negative attitudes toward the self decrease and positive amtudes increase. Wehave measured the gradual increase in self-acceptance and have studied the correlated increase in acceptance of others. But as I examinethese statements and comparethem with our more recent cases, I feel they fall short of the trutl~ The client not only accepts himself-- a phrase which maycarry the connotation of a grudging and reluctant acceptance of the inevitable--he actually comes to like himself. This is not a bragging or self-assertive liking; it is rather a quiet pleasure in being one’s self. Mrs. Oak illustrates this trend rather nicely in her thirty-third interview. Is it significant that this follows by ten days the interview where she could for the first time admit to herself that the therapist cared? Whatever our speculations on this point, this fragment indicates very well the quiet joy in being one’s self, together with the apologetic attitude which, in our culture, one feels it is ne~ to take toward such an experience. In the last few minutes of the interview, knowing her time is nearly up she says: C: One thing worries me--and rll hurry because I can always go back to it-- a feeling that occasionally I can’t turn out. Feeling of being quite pleased with myself. Again the Q technique." I walked out of here one time, and impulsively I threw my first card, "I am an attractive personality"; looked at it sort of aghast hut left it there, I mean, because honestly, I mean, that is exactly howit felt--a--well, that bothered meand I catch that now. * This portion needs explanatlom As part of a research study by anod~ staff memberthis client had been asked several time; during therapy to sort a large group of cards, each containing a self-descript/ve phrase, in such a way as to portray her ownself. At one end of the sorting she was to place the card or cards most like herself, and at the other end, those most unlike herself. Thus whenshe says that she put as the first card, ’~1 aman attractive personality," it means that she regarded this as the item most characteristic nl ae~elf. 88 r~ PROCF~ OFBECOMmC A P~asON Every once in a while a sort of pleased feeling, nothing SUperior, but just--I don’t know, sort of pleased. A neatly turned way. Andit bothered me. Andyet--I wonder--I rarely remember things I say here, I meanI wondered whyit was that I was convinced, and something about what I’ve felt about being hurt that I suspected in- myfeelings whenI would hear someonesay to a child, "Don’t cry." I mean, I always felt, but it isn’t right; I mean, if be’s hurt, let him cry. Well, then, now this pleased feeling that I have. I’ve recently comem feel, it’s--there’s something almost the same there. It’s--~Ve don’t obiect when children feel pleased with themselves. It’s -- I mean, there really isn’t anything vain. It’s--maybe that’s how people should feel. T: You’ve been inclined almost to look askance at yourself for this feeling, and yet as you think about it more, maybeit comes close to the two sides of the picture, that if a child wants to cry, why shouldn’t he cry? Andif he wants to feel pleased with himself, doesn’t he have a perfect right to feel pleased with himself?. And that sort of ties in with this, what I would see as an appreciation of yourself that you’ve experienced every now and again. C: Ye~ Ye~ T: "I’m really a pretty rich and interesting person." C: Something like that. And then I say to myself, "Our society pushes us around and we’ve lost it." And I keep going back to my feelings about children. Well, maybethey’re richer than we are. Maybewe -- it’s something we’ve lost in the process of growing up. T: Could be that they have a wisdomabout that that we’ve lost. C: That’s right. Mytime’s up. Here she arrives, as do so manyother clients, at the tentative, slightly apologetic realization that she has cometo like, enjoy, appreciate herself. Onegets the feeling of a spontaneous relaxed enjoymerit, a primitive joie de vivre, perhaps analogous to the lamb frisking about the meadowor the porpoise gracefully leaping in and out of the waves. Mrs. Oak feels that it is something native to the organism. Directions in Therapy 89 to the infant, something we have lost in the warping process of development. Earlier in this case one sees something of a forerunner of dais feeling, an incident which perhaps makesmore clear its fundamental nature. In the ninth interview Mrs. Oak in a somewhatembarrassed fashion reveals something she has always kept to herseff. That she brought it forth at some cost is indicated by the fact that it was preceded by a very long pause, of several minutes duration. Then she spoke. C: Youknowthis is kind of goofy, but I’ve never told anyone this (nervous laugh) and it’ll probably do me good. For years, oh, probably from early youth, from seventeen probably on, I, I have had what I have cometo call to myself, told myself were "flashes of sanity." I’ve never told anyone this, (another embarrassed laugh) wherein, in, really I feel sane. And, and pretty muchaware of life. Andalways with a terrific kind of concern and sadness of howfar away, howfar astray that we have actually gone. It’s just a feeling once in a while of finding myself a whole kind of person in a terribly chaotic kind of world. T: It’s been fleeting and it’s been infrequent, but there have been times whenit seems the whole you is functioning and feeling in the world, a very chaotic world to be sure C: That’s right. And I mean, and knowing actually how far astray we, we’ve gone from, from being whole healthy people. And of course, one doesn’t talk in those terms. T: A feeling that it wouldn’t be safe to talk about the ~mging you" C: Where does that person live? T: Almost as if there was no place for such a person to, to exist. C: Of course, you know, that, that makesme--nowwait a minute- that probably explains whyI’m primarily concerned with feelings here. That’s probably it. ¯ The therapist’s reference is to her statement in a prev/o~ interview that in therapy she was singing a song. 9O T~ Paoc~s oF BECOMmOA I~¢oN T: Because that whole you does exist with all your feeling~ Is that it, you’re moreaware of feelings? C: That’s right. It’s not, it deesn’t reject feelings and-- that’s it. T: °That whole you somehowlives feelings instead of somehow pushing them to one side. C: That’s right. (Pause) I suppose from the practical point view it could be said that what I ought to be doing is solving SOmeproblems, day-to-day problems. And yet, I, I- what I’m trying to do is solve, SOlve something else that’s a great, that is a great deal more important than little day-to-day problems. Maybe that sums up the whole thing. T: I wonderif this will distort your meaning, that from a hardheaded point of view you ought to he spending time thinking through specific problems. But you wonder if perhaps maybeyou aren’t on a quest for this whole you and perhaps that’s more important than a solution to the day-to-day problem~ C: I think that’s it. I think that’s it. That’s probably what I mean. If we maylegitimately put together these two experiences, and if we are justified in regarding them as typical, then we maysay that both in therapy and in SOmefleeting experiences throughout her previous life, she has experienced a healthy satisfying enjoyable appreciation of herself as a whole and functioning creature; and that this experience occurs whenshe does not reject her feelings but lives them. Here it seems to me is an important and often overlooked truth about the therapeutic process. It works in the direction of permitling the person to experience fully, and in awareness, all of his reactions including his feelings and emotions. As this occurs, the individual feels a positive liking for himself, a genuine appreciation of himself as a total functioning unit, which is one of the important end points of therapy. THEDISCOVERY THAT THECOREOF PERSONALITY IS POSlTFCE Oneof the most revolutionary concepts to grow out of our clini- Directions in Therapy 91 cal experience is the growing recognition that the innermost core of man’s nature, the deepest layers of his personality, the base of his "animal nature," is positive in nature--is basically socialized, forward-moving,rational and realistic. This point of view is so foreign to our present culture that I do not expect it to be accepted, and it is indeed so revolutionary in its implications that it should not be accepted without thorough-going inquiry. But even if it should stand these tests, it will be difficult to accept. Religion, especially the Protestant Christian tradition, has permeated our culture with the concept that manis basically sinful, and only by something approaching a miracle can his sinful nature be negated. In psychology, Freud and his followers have presented convincing arguments that the id, man’s basic and unconscious nat’ure, is primarily made up of instincts which would, if permitted expression, resuk in incest, murder, and other crimes~ The whole problem of therapy, as seen by this group, is howto hold these untamed forces in check in a wholesomeand conm-uctive manner, rather than in the costly fashion of the neurotic. But the fact that at heart manis irrational, unsocialized, destructive of others and serf-this is a concept accepted almost without question. To he sure there are occasional voices of protest. Maslow(1) puts up a vigorous case for man’s animal nature, pointing out that the anti-social emodons-hosfifity, jealousy, etc.--result from frustration of morebasic impulses for love and security and belonging, which ate in themselves desirable. And Montsgn (2) likewise develops the thesis that cooperation, rather than struggle, is the basic law of humanlife. But these solitary voices are little bear& On the wholethe viewpoint of the professional worker as well as the laymanis that man as he is, in his basic nature, had best be kept under control or under cover or both. As I look back over my years of clinical experience and research, it seems to methat I have been very slow to recognize the faJsene~ of this popular and professional concept. The reason, I believe, lles in the fact that in therapy there are continually being uncovered hostile and anti-socinl feelings, so that it is easy m assume that this indicates the deeper and therefore the basic nature of man. Only slowly has it becomeevident that these untamedand unsocial feel- 92 T~ l~ocz~ oi B~.co~o A PE~oN ings are neither the deepest nor the strongest, and that the inner core of man’s personality is the organism itself, which is essentially both self-preserving and social. To give more specific meaningto this argument, let meturn again to the case of Mrs. Oak. Since the point is an important one, I shall quote at some length from the recorded case to illustrate the type of experience on which I have based the foregoing statements. Perhaps the excerpts can illustrate the opening up of layer after layer of personality until we cometo the deepest element. It is in the eighth interview that Mrs. Oak rolls back the first hyox of defense, and discovers a bitterness and desire for revenge underneath. C: Youknowover in this area of, of sexual disturbance, I have a feeling that I’m beginning to discover that it’s pretty bad, pretty bad. I’m finding out that, that I’m bitter, really. Damnbitter. I -- and I’m not turning it back in, into myself... I think what I probably feel is a certain element of "I’ve been cheated." (Her voice is very tight and her throat chokes up.) AndI’ve covered up very nicely, to the point of consciously not earing. But I’m, I’m sort of amazedto find that in this practice of, what shall I call it, a kind of sublimation that right under it-- again words-- there’s a, a kind of passive force that’s, it’s pas-- it’s very passive, but at the same time it’s just kind of murderous. T: So there’s the feeling, "I’ve really been cheated. I’ve covered that up and seem not to care and yet underneath that there’s a kind of a, a latent but very muchpresent bitterness that is very, very strong." C: It’s very strong. I-- that I know. It’s terribly powerfuL T: Almust a dominating kind of force. C: Of which I amrarely conscious. Almost never... Well, the only way I can describe it, it’s a kind of murderous thing, but without violence .... It’s morelike a feeling of wanting to get even.... And of course, I won’t pay back, but I’d like to. I really would like to. Directions in TIoerapy 93 Upto this point the usual explanation seems to fit perfectly. Mr~ Oak has been able to look beneath the socially controlled surface of her behavior, and finds underneath a murderous feeling of hatred and a desire to get even. This is as far as she goes in exploring this particular feeling until considerably hter in therapy. She picks up the theme in the thirty-first interview. She has had a hard time getting under way, feels emotionally blocked, and cannot get at the feeling which is welling up in her. C: I have the feeling it isn’t guilt. (Pause. She ,weeps.) Of course I mean, I can’t verbalize it yet. (Then ~itb a rush of emotion) It’s just being terribly burr! T: M-hm.It isn’t guilt except in the sense of being very much woundedsomehow. C: (Weeping) It’s--you know, often I’ve been guilty of it myself but in later years whenI’ve heard parents say to their children, "stop crying," I’ve had a feeling, a hurt as though, well, why should they tell them to stop crying? They feel sorry for themselves, and whocan feel more adequately sorry for himself than the child. Well, that is sort of what-- I mean, as though I mean, I thought that they should let him cry. And -- feel sorry for him too, maybe. In a rather objective kind of way. Well, that’s-that’s something of the kind of thing l’ve been experiencing. I mean, now--just right now. Andin--in-T: That catches a little more the flavor of the feeling that it’s almost as if you’re really weeping for yourself. C: Yeah. And again yon see there’s coultic~ Our culture is such that -- I mean, one doesn’t indulge in self-pity. But this isn’t-- I mean, I feel it doesn’t quite have that connotation. It mayhave. T: Sort of think that there is a cultural objection to feeling sorry about yourself. And yet you feel the feeling you’re experiencing isn’t quite what the culture objected to either. C: And then of course, I’ve cometo--to see and to fed that over this--see. I’ve covered it up. (Weeps.) But I’ve covered it 94 Tm~ I~o~ oF I~coMmQ A l~ up with so muchbitterness, which in rum I had to Cover up. (Weeping) That’s what I want to get rid of! I almost don’t care ifI hurt~ T: (Softly, and ~.qtb an empathic tenderness to.ward the burr she is experiencing) You fed that here at the basis of it as you experience it is a feeling of real tears for yourself. But that you can’t show, mustn’t show, so that’s been covered by bitterness that you don’t like, that you’d like to be rid of. You almost feel you’d rather absorb the hurt than to--than m feel the bitterness. (Pause) And what you seem to be saying quite strongly is, I do burr, and I’ve tried to cover it up. C: I didn’t know it. T: M-Inn. Like a new discovery really. C: (Speaking at the samet/me) I never really did know. But it’s you know, it’s almost a physical thing. It’s--it’s sort of as though I were looking within myself at all kinds of--nerve endings and bits of things that have been sort of mashed. (WeepT: As though some of the most delicate aspects of you physically almost have been crushed or hurt C: Yes. And you know, I do get the feeling, thing." (Pause) "Oh, you poor T: Just can’t help but feel very deeply sorry for the person that is you. {2." I don’t think I feel sorry for the whole person; it’s a certain aspect of the thing. T: Sorry to see that hurt. C:Yeah. T: M-hm.M-hnL C: Andthen of course there’s this damnbitterness that I want to get rid of. It’s -- it gets meinto trouble. It’s because it’s a tricky thing. It tricks me. (Pause) D/rec~’/~/n Tberepy 95 7"." Feel as though that bitterness is something you’d like to be rid of because it doesn’t do right by yore C: (C ,weeps. Long pause) I don’t know. It seems to me that I’m right in feeling, what in the world good would it do to term this thing guilt. To chase downthings that would give me an interesting case history, shall we say. Whatgood would it do? It seems to me that the-- that the key, the real thing is in this feeling that I have. 7": Yon could track downsome tag or other and could make quite a pursuit of that, but you feel as though the core of the whole thing is the kind of experience that you’re just having right here. C: That’s right. I mean if--I don’t knowwhat’ll happen to the feeling. Maybenothing. I don’t know, but it seems to me that whatever understanding I’to to have is a part of this feeling of hurt, of--it doesn’t matter much what it’s called. (Pause) Then one can’t go- around with a hurt so openly exposed. I mean this seems to me that somehowthe next process has to be a kind of healing. T: Seems as though you couldn’t po~’bly expose yourself if part of yourself is so hurt, so you wonderif somehowthe hurt mu~m’t be healed first. (Pause) C: And yet, you know, it’s--it’s a funny thing (pause). It sounds h~e a statement of complete confusion or the old saw that the neurotic doesn’t want to give up his symptoms.But that isn’t true. I mean, that isn’t true here, but it’s--I can just hope that this will impart what I feel. I somehowdon’t mind being hurt. I mean, it’s just occurred to methat I don’t mindterribly. It’s a--I mind more the- the feeling of bitterness which is, I know, the cause of this frustration, I meanthe-- I somehowmind that more. T: Wouldthis get it? That, though you don’t like the hurt, yet you feel you can accept that. That’s bearable. Somehowit’s the things that have covered up that hurt, like the bitterness, that you just -- at this moment,can’t stand. C: Yeah. That’s just about it. It’s sort of as though, well, the first, T~ PROC~ OF B~oMmQ A I~ZSON I mean, as though, it’s--well, it’s something I can cope with. Now,the feeling of, well, I can still have a hell of a lot of fun, see. But that this other, I mean, this frustration-- I mean, it comesout in so manyways, I’m beginning to realize, you see. I mean, just this sort of, this kind of thing. T: Anda hurt you can accept. It’s a part of life within a lot of other parts of life, too. Youcan have lots of fun. But to have all of your life diffused by frustration and bitterness, that you don’t like, you don’t want, and are nowmore aware of. C: Yeah. Andthere’s somehow no dodging it now. Yousee, I’m muchmore aware of it. (Pause) I don’t know. Right now, don’t knowjust what the next step is. I really don’t know. (Pause) Fortunately, this is a kind of development, so that it-doesn’t carry over too acutely into -- I mean, I -- what I’m trying to say, I think, is that I’m still functioning. I’m still enjoying myandT: Just sort of want me to knowthat in lots of ways you carry on just as you always have. C: That’s it. (Pause) Oh, I think I’ve got to stop and go. In this lengthy excerpt we get a clear picture of the fact that underlying the bitterness and hatred and the desire to get back at the world which has cheated her, is a muchless anti-social feeling, a deep experience of having been hurt. Andit is equally clear that at this deeper level she has no desire to put her murderousfeelings into action. She dislikes them and would like to be rid of them. The next excerpt comes from the thirty-fourth interview. It is very incoherent material, as verbalizations often are whenthe individual is trying to express something deeply emotional Here she is endeavoring to reach far downinto herself. She states that it will be di~cult to formuhte. C: I don’t knowwhether rH be able to talk about it yet or not. Might give it a try. Something--I mean, it’s a feeling-- that-sort of an urge to really get out. I knowit isn’t going to mako sense. I think that maybe if I can get it out and get it a little, well, D~e~~ Therapy 97 in a little more matter of fact way, that it’ll be something that’s more useful to me. And I don’t knowhow to --I mean, it seems as though I want to say, I want to talk about myself. Andthat is of course as I see, what I’ve been doing for all these hours. But, no, this-- it’s my self. I’ve quite recently becomeaware of rejecting certain statements, because to me they sounded--not quite what I meant, I mean, a little bit too idealized. And I mean, I can rememberalways saying it’s more seLfish than that, more selfish than that. Until I -- it sort of occurs to me, it dawns, yeah, that’s exactly what I mean, but the selfishness I mean, has an entirely different connotation. I’ve been using a word"selfish." Then I have this feeling of-- I -- that I’ve never expressed it before, of selfish which means nothing. A--I’m still going to talk about it. A kind of pulsation. Andit’s something aware all the time. Andstir it’s there. AndI’d like to be able to utilize it, too -- as a kind of descending into this thing. Youknow, it’s as though--I don’t know, damn! I’d sort of acquired someplace, and picked up a kind of acquaintance with the structure. Almost as though I knew it brick for brick kind of thing. It’s something that’s an awarencS~ I mean, that-- of a feeling of not being fooled, of not being drawn into the thing, and a critical sense of knowingoess. But in a way the reason, it’s hidden and-- can’t be a part of everyday lif~ Andthere’s something of--at times I feel almost a little bit terrible in the thing, but again terrible not as terrible. Andwhy?I think I know. And it’s--it also explains a lot to me. It’s--it’s something that is totally without hate. I mean, just totally. Not with love, but totally ~qtbout bate. But it’s--it’s an exciting thing, too . .. I guess maybeI amthe kind of person that likes to, I mean, probably even torment myself, or to chase things down, to try to find the whole. And l’ve told myself, nowlook, this is a pretty strong kind of feeling which you have. It isn’t constant. Bat you feel it sometimes, and as you let yourself feel it, you feel it yourself. Youknow,there are words for that kind of thing that one could find in abnormal psychology. Might almost be like the feeling that is occasionally, is attributed to things that you read about. I mean, there are some elements there ~ I mean, this pulsation, this excitement, this knowing. And I’ve said I tracked downone thing, I mean, I was very, very brave, what T~z PRoo~ oF BECOMING A PERSON shall we say-- a sublimated sex drive. AndI thought, well, there I’ve got it I’ve really solved the thing. Andthat there is nothing moreto it than that. Andfor awhile, I mean, I was quite pleased =with myself. That was it. Andthen I had to admit, no, that wasn’t it. ’Cause that’s something that had been with me long before I becameso terribly frustrated sexually. I mean, that w~n’t-- and, but in the thing, then I began to see a little, within this very core is an acceptance of sexual rehtionship, I mean, the only kind that I would think would be possible. It was in this thing. It’s not somethingthat’s been-- I mean, sex hasn’t been sublimated or substituted there. No. Within this, within what I knowthere--I mean, it’s a different kind of sexual feeling to be sure. I mean, it’s one that is stripped of all the things that have happened to sex, ff you know what I mean. There’s no chase, no pursuit, no battle, no-- well, no kind of hate, which I think, seems to me, has crept into such things. Andyet, I mean, this feeling has been, oh, a little bit disturbing. T: I’d like to see if I can capture a little of what that meansto you. It is as you’ve gotten very deeply acquainted with yourself on kind of a brick-by-brick experiencing basis, and in that sense have becomemoreself&h, and the notion of really, -- in the discovering of what is the core of you as separate from all the other aspects, you comeacross the realization, which is a very deep and pretty thrilling realization, that the core of that self is not only without hate, but is really something more resembling a saint, something really very p~e, is the word I would use. Andthat you can try to depreciate that. You can say, maybeit’s a sublimation, maybeit’s an abnormal manifestation, screwball and so on. But inside of yourself, you knewthat it isn’t. This contains the feelings which could contain rich sexual expression, but it sounds bigger than, and really deeper than that. And yet fully able to inulude all that could be a part of sex expression. C: It’s probably something like tha~... It’s kind of--I mean, it’s a kind of descent. It’s a going downwhere you might almost think it should be going up, bat no, it’s-- I’m sure of it; it’s kind of going down. T: This is a going downand immersing yourself in your self almost. Dirtctiom in Therapy 99 C: Yeah. And I ~ I can’t just throw it aside. I mean, it just seems, oh, it just is. I mean, it seems an awfully important thing that I just had to say. T: I’d like to pick up one of those things too, to see if I understand it. That it sounds as though this sort of idea you’re expressing is something you must be going up to capture, something that /sn’t quite. Actually though, the feeling is, this is a going down to capture something that’s moredeeply there. C: It is. It really--there’s something to that which is--I mean, this--I have a way, and of course sometimewe’re going to have to go into that, of rejecting almost violently, that which is righteous, rejection of the ideal, the--as--and that expressed it; I mean, that’s sort of what I mean. One is a going up into I don’t know. I mean, I just have a feeling, I can’t follow. I mean, it’s pretty thin stuff if you ever stm’t knocking k down. This one went-- I wondered why-- I mean, has this awfully definite feding of descending. T: That this isn’t a going up into the t~n ideal. This is a going down into the astonisVungly solid reality, that-C: Yeak 7’." -- is reaUy more surprising than-C: Yeah. I mean, a something that you don’t knock down. That’s there--I don’t know--seemsto me after you’ve abstracted the whole thing. That lasm... Since this is presented in such confused fashion, it might be worth while to draw from it the consecutive themes which she has expressed. I’m going to talk about myself as self-ish, but with a new connotation m the word. I’ve acquired an acquaintance with the structure of myself, know myself deeply. As I descend into myself, I discover something exciting, a cor¢ that is totally without hate. It can’t be a part of everyday life-- it mayeven be abnormal 1~0 Tm~ PRoc.~ OF BECOminG A PmumN I thought first k was just a sublimated sex drive. But no, this is more inclusive, deeper than sex. One would expect this to be the kind of thing one would discover by going up into the thin realm of ideals. But actually, I found it by going deep within myself. It seems to be something that is the essence, that last~ Is this a mystic experience she is describing? It would seem that the counselor felt so, from the flavor of his responses. Can we attach any significance to such a Gertrude Stein kind of expression? The writer would simply point oat that manyclients have cometo a somewhatsimihr conclusion about themselves, though not always expressed in such an emotional way. EvenMrs. Oak, in the fullowing interview, the thirty-fifth, gives a clearer and more concise statemerit of her feeling, in a more down-to-earth way. She also explains whyit was a difficult experience to face. C: I think I’m awfully glad I found myself or brought myself or wanted to talk about self. I mean, it’s a very personal, private kind of thing that you just don’t talk about. I mean, I can understand my feeling of, oh, probably slight apprehension now. It’s--well, sort of as though I was just rejecting, I mean, all of the things that western civilization stands for, you see. And wondering whether I was tight, I mean, whether it was quite the right path, and still of course, feeling how right the thing was, you see. And so there’s bound to be a conflict. And then this, and I mean, now I’m feeling, well, of course that’s howI feel. I meanthere’s a this thing that I term a kind of a lack of hate, I mean, is very reaL It carried over into the things I do, I believe in .... I think it’s all tight. It’s sort of maybemy saying to myself, well, you’ve been bashing me all over the head, I mean, sort of from the beginning, with superstitions and taboos and misinterpreted doctrines and laws and your science, your refrigerators, your atomic bombs. But I’m just not buying; you see, I’m just, you just haven’t quite succeeded. I think what I’m saying is that, well, I mean, just not conforming, and it’s--well, it’s just that way. T: Yourfeeling at the present time is that you have been very Directions in Therapy 101 much aware of all the cultural pressures--not always very much aware, but "there have been so manyof those in my life--and nowI’m going downmore deeply into myself to find out what I really feel" and it seems very muchat the present time as though that somehowseparates you a long ways from your culture, and that’s a little frightening, but feels basically good. Is that-C: Yeah. Well, I have the feeling nowthat it’s okay, really .... Then there’s something else--a feeling that’s starting to grow; well, to be almost formed, as I say. This kind of conclusion, that I’m going to stop looking for something terribly wrong. NowI don’t knowwhy. But I mean, just--it’s this kind of thing. I’m sort of saying to myself now, well, in view of what I know, what I’ve found -- I’m pretty sure I’ve ruled out fear, and I’m positive I’m not afraid of shock--I mean, I sort of would have welcomed it. But--in view of the places I’ve been, what I learned there, then also kind of, well, taking into consideration what I don’t know, sort of, maybethis is one of the things that I’ll have to date, and say, weU, now, I’ve just--I just can’t find it See? And now without any--without, I should say, any sense of apology or covering up, just sort of simple statement that I can’t find what at this time, appears to be bad. T: Does this catch it? That as you’ve gone more and more deeply into yourself, and as you think about the kind of things that you’ve discovered and learned and so on, the conviction grows very, very strong that no matter howfar you go, the things that you’re going to find are not dire and awful They have a very different character. C: Yes, something like tha~ Here, even as she recognizes that her feeling goes against the grain of her culture, she feels bound to say that the core of herself is not bad, nor terribly wrong, but something positive. Underneath the layer of controlled surface behavior, underneath the bitterness, underneath the hurt, is a self that is positive, and that is without hate. This I believe is the lesson which our clients have been facing us with for a long time, and which we have been slow m learn. If harelessness seems like a rather neutral or negative concept, per- T~ Pmcee~oF B~c~A Pn~m haps we should let Mrs. Oak explain its meaning. In her thirty’ninth interview, as she feels her therapy drawing to a close, she returns to this topic. C: I wonder if I ought to clarify-- it’s clear to me, and perhaps that’s all that matters really, here, my strong feeling about a hate,free kind of approach. Nowthat we have brought it up on a rational kind of plane, I know--it sounds negative. And yet in my thinking, my--not really my thinking bat my feeling, it--and mythinking, yes, mythinking, too -- it’s a far morepositive thing than this-- than a love-- and it seems to me a far easier kind of a-- it’s less con~ning. But it-- I realize that it mast sort of sound and almost seem like a complete rejection of so manythings, of so manycreeds and maybek is. I don’t know. But it just to me seems morepositive. T: Youcan see howit might sound morenegative to someonebut as far as the meaningthat it has for you is concerned, it doesn’t seem as binding, as possessive I take it, as love. It seems as though k actually is more--moreexpandable, moreusable, than C: Yesh. T: -- any of these mowerterms. C: Really does to me. It’s easier. Well, anyway,it’s easier for me to feel that way. AndI don’t know. It seems to me to really be a way of--of not--of finding yourself in a place where you aren’t forced to makerewards and you aren’t forced to punish. It is-- it means so much. It just seems to me to make for a kind of freedorm T: M-hr~M-hm.Whereone is rid of the need of either rewarding or punishing, then it just seems to you there is so muchmore freedom for all concerned. C: That’s tight (Pause) I’m prepared for some breakdowns along the way. T: Youdon’t expect it will be smooth, sailing. C: No. Dh.ections in Therapy 103 This section is the story--greatly abbreviated--of one client’s discovery that the deeper she dug within herself, the less she had m fear; that instead of finding something terribly wrong within her° serf, she gradually uncovered a core of self which wanted neither to reward nor punish others, a self without hate, a self which was deeply socialized. Do we dare to generalize from this type of experience that if we cut through deeply enough to our organismic nature, that we find that manis a positive and social animal? This is the suggestion from our clinical experience. Bzn~GOs~’s Oac, xms~, O~z’s ExPEp.mscz The thread which runs through muchof the foregoing material of this chapter is that psychotherapy (at least client-centered therapy) is a process whereby man becomeshis organism--without self-deception" without distortion. Whatdoes tiffs mean? Weare talking here about something at an experiential level-a phenomenonwhich is not easily put into words, and which, if apprehended only at the verbal level, is by that very fact, already distorted. Perhaps if we use several sorts of descriptive formulation, it may ring some bell, however faint, in the reader’s experience, and cause him to feel "Oh, now I know, from my own experience, something of what you are talking about-" Therapy seems to meana getting back to basic sensory and visceral experience. Prior to therapy the person is prone to ask himself, often unwittingly, ’%Vhatdo others think I should do in this situation?" "Whatwouldmyparents or myculture want me m do?" "What do I think ought to be done?" He is thus continually acting in terms of the form which should he imposed upon his behavior. This does not necessarily meanthat he always acts in accord with the opinions of others. He may indeed endeavor to act so as m contradict the expectations of othem He is nevertheless acting in terms of the expectations (often introjected expectations) of others. During the process of therapy the individual comes to ask himself, in regard to ever-wideulng areas of his life-space, "Howdo I experience this?" "What does it meanto me?" "If I behave in a certain way how do I symbolize the meaning which it ,will have for me?" He comes to act on a basis of what maybe termed realism -- a realistic balancing 104 Tm~P~c~ oF BEcoMmo A of the satis~actlons and dissatisfactions which any action will bring to himself. Perhaps k will ass~ those who, like myself, tend to think in con~e and clinical terms, if I put someof these ideas hamsohemat~ed° formulations of the process through which various clients go. For one client this may mean: "I have thought I must feel only love for myparents, but I find that I experience both love and bitter resen~enr. Perhaps I can be that person whofreely experiences both love and reseutmenu" For another client the learning maybe: "I have thought I was only bad and worthless. NowI experience myserf at times as one of much worth; at other times as one of tittle worth or usefulness. Perhaps I can be a person who experiences varying degrees of worth." For another: "I have held the conception that no one could redly love mefor myself. NowI experience the affectional warmthof another for me. Perhaps I can be a person whois lovable by others--perhaps I am such a person." For stir another: "I have been brought up to feel that I must not appreciatz myseff-- but I do. I can cry for myseff, but I can enjoy myself, too. Perhaps I am a richly varied person whomI can enjoy and for whom I can feel sorry." Or, to take the last examplefrom Mrs. Oak, "I have thought that in somedeep way I was had, that the most basic elements in me must be dire and awful. I don’t experience that badness, hut rather a positive desire to live and let live. Perhaps I can be that person whois, at heart, positive." What is it that makes possible anything but the first sentence of each of these formuhtinns? It is the addition of awareness. In therapy the person adds to ordinary experience the full and undistorted awareness of his experiencing--of his sensory and visceral reactions. He ceases, or at least decreases, the distortions of experience in awareness. He can be aware of what lie is actually experiencing, not simply what lie can permit himself to experience after a thorough screening through a conceptual filter. In this sense the person becomes for the first time the full potential of the human organism, with the enriching element of awareness freely added to the basic aspect of sensory and visceral reaction. The person comes to be what he is, as clients so frequently say in therapy. Whatthis seemsm meanis that the individual comesto be ~ in awareness-- Dh’eaiomin Therapy 105 what he is- in experience. He is, in other words, a complete and fully functioning humanorgasm. Already I can sense the reactions of some of my rcader~ ’~Do you meanthat as a result of therapy, man becomesnothing but a human organism, a humananimal? Whowill control him? Whowill socialize him? Will he then throw over all inhibitions? Have you merely released the beast, the id’ in man?"To which the most adequate reply seems to be, "In therapy the individual has actually becomea humanorganism, with all the richness which that implie~ He is realistically able to control himself, and be is incorrigibly socialized in his desires. ~L~ is no be_~_~ in m~. T~ ~.~ and this we have been able to release." ¯ So the basic discovery of psychotherapy seems m me, if our observatious have any validity, that we do not need to be afraid of being "merely" homosapiens. It is the discovery that if we can add to the sensory and visceral experiencing which is characteristic of the whole animal kingdom, the gift of a free and undistorted awarehess of which only the humananimal seems fully capable, we have an organism which is beautifully and constructively realistic. We have then an organism which is as aware of the demandsof the oultare as it is of its own physiological demands for food or sex-which is just as aware of its desire for friendly relationships as it is of its desire to aggrandize imelf -- which is just as aware of its delicate and sensitive tenderness toward others, as it is of its hostilities toward other~ Whenman’s unique capacity of awareness is thus functioning freely and fully, we find that we have, not an animal whomwe must fear, not a beast whomust be controlled, but an organism able m achieve, through the remarkable integrative capacity of its central nervous system" a balanced, realistic, self-enhancing, other-enhancing behavior as a resnltant of all these dements of awareness. To put it another way, whenman is less than fully man--whenhe denies m awareness various aspects of his experience- then indeed we have all too often reason to fear him and his behavior, as the present world situation testifies. But when he is most folly man, when he is his complete organism, whenawareness of experience, that peculiarly humanattribute, is most fully operating, then he is to be trusted, then his behavior is constructive. It is not always convert- 106 Te~ PRo~sor Beco~n~GA PessoN tional. It will not always be conforming. It will be individualized. But it will also be socialized. A COSCL~DISQ Co~¢r I have stated the preceding section as strongly as I am able because it represents a deep conviction growing out of many years of experienc~ I amquite aware, however, of the difference between conviction and truth. I do not ask anyone to agree with my experience, but only to consider whether the formulation given here agrees with his own experience. Nor do I apologize for the speculative character of this paper. There is a time for speculation, and a time for the sifting of evidence. It is to be hoped that gradually someof the speculations and opinions and clinical hunches of this paper maybe put to operational and definitive test. REFERENCES 1. Maslow,A. H. Our maligned afftmal nature. ]our. of Psychol., 1949, 28, 273-278. 2. Montaga,A. On Being Human.NewYork: Hem~Schuman, Inc., 1950. 3. Rogers, C. R., Cllent-Centered Tberap~y. Boston: HoughtonMi~tin Co, 1951, Chapter IV, "The Process of Therapy." 6 What It Means to Become a Person ThciS chapter was first given as a talk to a meeting at Oberlin ollege in 1954. I vaas trying to pull togetber in more completely organized form, some of the conceptions of therapy ~bicb bad been growing in me. I have revised it slightly. As is customary ,with me, I was trying to keep my thinking close to the grass roots of actual experience in therapeutic interviews, so 1 drevo heavily upon recorded interviews as the source of the generalizations ~bicb I make. F MY WORK thetheCounseling of the Chicago, I at have opportunityCenter of working withUniversity people whoof present a wide variety of personal problems. There is the student concerned about failing in college; the housewife disturbed about her marriage; the individual whofeels he is teetering on the edge of a complete breakdownor psychosis; the responsible professional man who spends muchof his time in sexual fantasies and functions inefficiently 107 106 Tm~l~oc~ oF B~oMmG A PEnsON in his work; the brilliant student, at the top of his class, who is paralyzed by the conviction that he is hopelessly and helplessly inadequate; the parent whois distressed by his child’s behavior; the popular girl who finds herself unaccountably overtaken by sharp spells of black depression; the womanwho fears that life and love are passing her by, and that her good graduate record is a poor recompense; the manwhohas becomeconvinced that powerful or sinister forces are plotting against him;--I could go on and on with the manydifferent and unique problems whichpeople bring to us. They run the gamut of life’s expedence~ Yet there is no s~tisfaerion in giving this type of catalog, for, as counselor, I knowthat the problem as stated in the fu~t interview will not be the problemas seen in the second or third hour, and by the tenth interview it will be a stiff different problem or series of problems. I have however cometo believe that in spite of this bewildering horizontal multiplicity, and the layer upon layer of vertical complexity, there is perhaps only one problem. As I follow the experience of many clients in the therapeutic relationship which we endeavor to create for them, k seems to methat each one is raising the same question. Below the level of the problem situation about which the individual is complaining--behind the trouble with studies, or wife, or employer, or with his ownuncontrollable or bizarre behavior, or with his frightening feelings, lies one central search. It seems to me that at bottom each person is asking, ’qNho am I, really? Howcan I get in touch with this real self, underlying all my surface behavior? Howcan I become myself?" T~ I~oc~s ov BECOMING GErT~G BEHIND THE MASK Let me try to explain what I meanwhenI s~y that it appears that the goal the individual most wishes to achieve, the end which he knowinglyand unknowinglypursues, is to becomehimself. Whena person comesto me, troubled by his unique combination of di~culties, I have found it most worth while to try" to create a relationship with him in which he is safe and free. It is mypurpose Wh~It Means to Become a Person 109 to understand the way he feels in his owninner world, m accept him as he is, to create an atmosphere of freedom in which he can move in his thinking and feeling and being, in any direction he desires. Howdoes he use this freedom? It is my experience that be uses it to becomemoreand more himself. He begins to drop the false fronts, or the masks, or the roles, with which he has faced life. He appears m be trying to discover something more basic, somet.hing more truly himself. At first he lays aside masks which he is to some degree aware of using. One young womanstudent describes in a counseling interview one of the masks she has been using, and how uncertain she is whether underneath this appeasing, ingrathting front there is any real self with convicfious. I was thinking about this business of standardg I somehowdeveloped a sort of knack, I guess, of-- well-- habit-- of u3ring to make people feel at ease around me, or to make things go along smoothly. There always had to be someappeaser around, being sorta the oil that soothed the water~ At a small meeting, or a lime party, or something--I could help things go along nicely and appear to be having a good fim~ And sometimes I’d surprise myself by arguing against what I really thought whenI saw that the person in charge would be quite unhappy about it if I didfft. In other words I just wasn’t ever--I mean, I didn’t fred myself ever being set and definite about thingg Nowthe reason why I did it probably was I’d been doing it around homeso much, I just didn’t stand up for my ownconvictions, until I don’t knowwhether I have any convictions to stand up for. I haven’t been really honestly being myself, or actually knowingwhat myreal serf is, and I’ve been just playing a sort of false role. You can, in this excerpt, see her examining the mask she has been using, recognizing her dissatisfaction with it, and wonderinghowto get to the real self underneath, if such a serf exist~ In this attempt to discover his ownserf, the client typically uses the relationship to explore, to examine the various aspects of his own experience, to recognize and face up to the deep contradictions which he often discovers. He learns how much of his behavior, 110 T~ l~oez.~ oF Bv.ooMm9 A Pmmo~ even how muchof the feeling he experiences, is not real, is nor somethingwhich flows from the genuine reactions of his organlsm~ but is a facade, a front, behind which he has been hiding. He discovers howmuchof his life is guided by what he thinks he should be, not by what he is. Often he discovers that he exists only in response to the demandsof others, that he seems to have no self of his own, that he is only trying to think, and feel, and behave in the way that others believe he ought to think, and feel and behave. In this connection I have been astonished to find howacenrately the Danish philosopher, S~ren Kierkegaard, pictured the dilemma of the individual more than a century ago, with keen psychological insight. He points out that the most commondespair is to be in despair at not choosing, or willing, to be oneself; but that the deepest form of despair is to choose "to be another than himself." On tho other hand "to will to be that sdf which one truly is, is indeed the opposite of despair," and this choice is the deepest responsibility of man. As I read some of his writings I almost feel that he must have listened in on the statements madeby our clients as they search and explore for the reality of self--often a painful and troubling search. This exploration becomeseven more disturbing whenthey find themselves involved in removing the false faces which they had not knownwere false face~ They begin to engage in the frightening task of exploring the turbulent and sometimes violent feelings within themselves. To remove a mask which you had thought was part of your real self can be a deeply disturbing experience, yet when there is freedom to think and feel and be, the individual moves toward such a goaL A few statements from a person who had completed a series of psyehotherapeutic interviews, will illustrate this. She uses manymetaphors as she tells howshe struggled to get to the core of herself. As I look at it now, I was peeling off layer after I’d build them up, tty them, and then discard mained the same. I didn’t knowwhat was at was very muchafraid to lind oat, but I had to first I felt there was nothing within me--just where I needed and wanted a solid core. Then I layer of defenses. them when you rethe bottom and I keep on trying. At a great emptiness began to feel tlgr What It Meant to Become a Person 11! I was facing a solid brick wall, too high to get over and too thick to go through. One day the wall becametranslucent, rather than solid. After this, the wall seemedto disappear but beyond it I discovered a dam holding hack violent, churning waters. I felt as if I were holding back the force of these waters and if I opened even a tiny hole I and all about mewould be destroyed in the ensuing torrent of feelings represented by the water. Finally I could stand the strain no longer and I let go. All I did, actually, was to succumbto complete and utter self pity, then hate, then love. After this experience, I felt as if I had leaped a brink and was safely on the other side, though still tottering a bit on the edge. I don’t knowwhat I was searching for or whereI was going, but I felt then as I have always felt whenever I really lived, that I was movingforward. I believe this represents rather well the feelings of manyan individual that if the false front, the wall the dam, is not maintained, then everything will be swept away in the violence of the feelings that he discovers pent-up in his private world. Yet it aLso illustrates the compelling necessity which the individual feels to search for and become himself. It also begins to indicate the way in which the individual determines the reality in himself--that when he fully experiences the feelings which at an organic level he/s, as this client experienced her self-pity, hatred, and love, then he feels an assurance that he is being a part of his real self. THEEXPERIENCING OF Fgr.LIN~ I would like to say something more about this experiencing of feeling. It is reaUy the discovery of unknowndements of self. The phenomenonI am trying to deson’oe is something which I think is quite diiEcult to get across in any meaningful way. In our daily lives there are a thousand and one reasons for not letting ourselves experience our attitudes fully, reasons from our past and from the present, reasons that reside within the social situation. It seems too dangerous, too potentially damaging, to experience them freely and fully. But in the safety and freedom of’the therapeutic relationship, they can be experienced fully, clear to the limit of what they are. They can be and are experienced in a fashion that I like to think of 112 Tm~ Pkcc~s oF BECOMING APr, LsoN as a "pure culture," so that for the momentthe person/s his fear, or he/s his anger, or he/s his tenderness, or whatever. Perhaps again I can clarify this by giving an example from a client which will indicate and convey something of what I mean. A young man, a graduate student whois deep in therapy, has been puzzling over a vague feeling which he senses in himself. He gradually identifies it as a frightened feeling of some kind, a fear of failing, a fear of not getting his Ph.D. Then comesa long pause. Fromthis point on we will let the recorded interview speak for itself. Client: I was kinda letting it seep through. But I also tied it in with you and with my rehtiomhip with you. And that’s one thing I feel about it is kind of a fear of it going away; or that’s another thing--it’s so hard to get hold of--there’s kind of two pulling feelings about it. Or two "me’s" somehow.One is the scared one that wants to hold on to things, and that one I guess I can feel pretty clearly right now. Youknow, I kinda need things to hold on to -- and I feel kinda scared. Therapist: M-hm.That’s something you can feel right this minute, and have been feeling and perhaps are feeling in regard to our relationship, too. C: Won’tyou let mehave this, because, you know, I kinda need it. I can be so lonely and scared without it. T: M-hm,m-hm.Let mehang on to this because I’d be terribly" scared if I didn’t. Let mehold on to it. (Pause) C: It’s kin& the same thing-- Won’t you let me have my thesis or my Ph.D so then... ’Cause I kinda need that little world. I mCR/L... T: In both ~ces it’s kind of a pleading thing too, isn’t it? Let me have this because I need it badly. I’d be awfully frightened without it. (Long pause.) C: I get a sense of... I can’t somehowget much further... It’s r2fis kind of pleading little boy, somehow,even . . . What’s this gesture of begging? (Putting his hands together as if in prayer) Isn’t it funny? ’Cause that... What It Means to Become a Person 113 T: Youput your hands in sort of a supplication. C: Ya, that’s right! Won’t you do this for me, kinda... Oh, that’s terrible! Who,me, beg? Perhaps this excerpt will convey a bit of the thing I have been talking about, the experiencing of a feeling all the way to the limi~ Here he is, for a moment,experiencing himself as nothing but a pleading little boy, supplicating, begging, dependen~ At that moment he is nothing but his pleadingness, all the way through. To be sure he almost immediately backs away from this experiencing by saying ’%Vho,me, beg?" but it has left its mark. As he says a momenthter, "It’s such a wondrous thing to have these new things comeout of me. It amazes meso mucheach time, and then again there’s that samefeeling, kind of feeling seared that I’ve so much of this that I’m keeping back or something." He realizes that this has bubbled through, and that for the momenthe is his dependency, in a way which astonishes him. It is not only dependencythat is experienced in this all-out kind of fashion. It may be hurt, or sorrow, or jealousy, or destructive anger, or deep desire, or confidence and pride, or sensitive tenderne~, or outgoing love. It may be any of the emotions of which man is capable. WhatI have gradually learned from experiences such as this, is that the individual in such a moment, is coming to be what he/s. Whena person has, throughout therapy, experienced in this fashion all the emotions which organismically arise in him, and has experienced them in this knowingand open manner, then he has experienced himself, in all the richness that exists within himself. He has becomewhat he i~ THEDmCOVSRY OFSELFIN EXPERIENCE Let us pursue a bit further this question of what it meansto becomeone’s self. It is a most perplexing question and again I will try to take from a statement by a client, written between interviews, a suggestion of an answer. She tells howthe various faqades by which she has been living have somehowcrumpled and collapsed, 114 Tee Pleezes oF BzcoMmQ A PERSON bringing a feeling of confusion, but also a feeling of relief. con’dutles: She Youknow, it seems as if all the energy that went into holding the arbitrary pattern together was quite unnecessary--a waste. You think you have to make the pattern yourself; but there are so manypieces, and it’s so hard to see where they fir. Sometimesyou put them in the wrong place, and the more pieces mis-fit~ed, the more effort it takes to hold them in place, until at last you are so fired that even that awful confusion is better than holding on any longer. Then you discover that left to themselves the jumbled pieces fall quite naturally into their ownplaces, and a living pattern emerges without any effort at all on your part. Your job is just to discover it, and in the course of that, you will find yourself and your ownplace. Youmust even let your ownexperience tell you its own meaning; the minute you tell it what it means, you are at war with yourself. Let me see if I on take her poetic expression and translate it into the meaningit has for me. I believe she is saying that to be herself means to find the pattern, the underlying order, which exists in the ceaselessly changing flow of her experience. Rather than to try to hold her experience into the form of a mask, or to make it be a form or structure that it is not, being herself meansto discover the unity and harmony which exists in her own actual feelings and reactions. It means that the real self is something which is comfortably di.9covered in one’s experiences, not something imposed upon it. Throughgiving excerpts from the statements of these clients, I have been trying to suggest what happens in the warmthand understanding of a facilitating relationship with a therapist. It seems thai: gradually, painfully, the individual explores what is behind the masks he presents to the world, and even behind the maskswith which he has been deceiving himself. Deeply and often vividly he experiences the various elements of himself which have been hidden within. Thus to an increasing degree he becomes himself -- not a faqade of conformity to others, not a cynical denial of all feeling, nor a front of intellectual rationality, but a living, breathing, feeling, fluctuating process-- in short, he becomesa person. What It Meamto Become a Person T~ l~so~ 115 WaoE~czs I imagine that some of you are asking, "But what k/nd of a person does he become? It isn’t enough to say that he drops the faqade~ Whatkind of person lies underneath?" Since one of the most obvious facts is that each individual tends to becomea saparate and distinct and unique person, the answer is not easy. HoweverI would like to point out some of the characteristic trends which I see. No one person would fully exemplify these characteristics, no one person fully achives the description I will give, but I do see certain generalizations which can be drawn, based upon living a therapeutic relationship with many client. Opv_~mssTo Exvra~z~c~ First of all I would say that in this process the individual becomes more open to his experience. This is a phrase which has cometo have a great deal of meaningto me. It is the opposite of defensiveness. Psychological research has shown that if the evidence of our senses runs contrary to our picture of self, then that evidence is distorte& In other words we cannot see all that our senses report, but only the things which fit the picture we have. Nowin a safe relationship of the sort I have descn’bed, this defensivenesa or rigidity, tends to be replaced by an increasing opennesa to experience. The individual becomesmore openly aware of his ownfeelings and attitudes as they exist in him at an organic level in the way I tried to describe. He aLso becomesmoreaware of reality as it exists outside of himself, instead of perceiving it in preconceived caregorie~ He sees that not all trees are green, not all men are stern fathers, not all womenare rejecting, not all failure experiences prove that he is no good, and the like. He is able to take in the evidence in a new situation, as/t is, rather than distorting it to tit a pattern which he already holds. As you might expect, this increasing ability to be open to experience makeshim far morerealistic in dealing with newpeople, newsituations, newproblems. It means that his beliefs are not rigid, that he can tolerate ambiguity. He can receive muchconflicting evidence without forcing closure upon the 116 T~ Pec~sa o~ Bzco~mo A Pnsozq situation. This openness of awareness m what exists at this moment in oneself and in the situation is, I believe, an important element in the description of the person whoemerges from therapy. Perhaps I can give this concept a more vivid meaning if I illustrate it from a recorded interview. A young professional man reports in the 48th interview the way in which he has becomemore open to some of his bodily sensations, as well as other feelings. C: It doesn’t seem to me that it would be possible for anybody to relate all the changes that you fed. But I certainly have felt recently that I have morerespect for, more objectivity toward my physical makeup.I meanI don’t expect too muchof myseif. This is howit works out: It feels to me that in the past I used to fight a certain tiredness that I felt after supper. Well, now I feel pretty sure that I really urn tired-- that I amnot makingmyself tired that I am just physiologically lower. It seemedthat I was just constanOy criticizing my tirednes~ 7"." So you can let yourself be tired, instead of feeling along with it a kind of criticiam of it. C: Yes, that I shouldn’t be tired or something. And it seems in a wayto be pretty profound that I can iust not fight this tiredness, and along with it goes a real feeling of I’ve got to slow down,too, so that being fired isn’t such an awful thing. I think I can also kind of pick up a thread here of why I should be that way in the way myfather is and the way he looks at someof these things. For instance, say that I was sick, and I would report this, and it would seemthat overtly he would want to do something about it but he would also communicate, "Oh, my gosh, more trouble." Youknow, something like that. T: As though there were something quite annoying really about being physically ill C: Yeah, I’m sure that my father has the same disrespect for his ownphysiology that I have had. Nowlast summerI twisted my hacL I wrenchedit, I heard it snap and everything. There was real pain there all the time at first, real sharp. AndI had the doctor look at it and he said it wasn’t serious, it should heal by itself as What It Means to Becomea Person II7 long as I didn’t bend too much. Well this was months ago-- and I have been noticing recently that--hell, this is a real pain and it’s still there m and it’s not my faul~ T: It doesn’t prove something bad about you-C: No-- and one of the reasons I seem to get more tired than I should maybeis because of this constant strain, and so--I have already madean appoinunent with one of the doctors at the hospital that he would look at it and take an X ray or something. In a way I guesss you could say that I am just more accurately sensitive -- or objectively sensitive to this kind of thing.... And this is really a profound change as I say, and of course my relationship with my wife and the two children is--well, you just wouldn’t recognize it if you could see meinside-- as you have-I mean--there just doesn’t seem to be anything more wonderful than really and genuinely--really feeling love for your own children and at the same time receiving i~ I don’t know how to put this. Wehave such an increased respect--both of us- for Judy and we’ve noticed jnst--as we participated in this--we have noticed such a tremendous change in her-- it seems to be a pretty deep kind of thing. T: It seems to meyou are saying that you can listen more accurately to yourself. If your body says it’s tired, you listen to it and believe it, instead of criticizing it; if it’s in pain, you can listen to that; if the feeling is really loving your wife or children, you can feel that, and it seems to show up in the differences in them too. Here, in a rehtively minor but symbolically important excerpt, can be seen much of what I have been trying to say about openness to experience. Formerly he could not freely feel pain or illness, because being ill meant being unacceptable. Neither could he feel tenderness and love for his child, because such feelings meant being weak, and he had to maintain his facsade of being strong. But now he can be genuinely open to the experiences of his organism--he can be tired whenhe is tired, he can feel pain whenhis organism is in pain, he can freely experience the love he feels for his daughter, 118 T~ l~co~ oF BECOMmO A and he can also feel and express annoyance toward her, as he goes on to say in the next portion of the interview. He can fully live the experiences of his total organism, rather than shutting them out of 8wareness. TRUST IN ONE’SORGANISM A second characteristic of the persons who emerge from therapy is difficult to describe. It seems that the person increasingly discovers that his ownorganism is trustworthy, that it is a suitable inStaLmentfor discovering the most satisfying behavior in each mediate situation. If this seems strange, let metry to state it more fidly. Perhaps it wiUhelp to understand my description if you think of the individual as faced with some existenthl choice: ’~ShaU I go home to my family during vacation, or stxike out on my own?" "Shaft I drink this third cocktail which is being offered?" "Is this the person whomI would like to have as mypartner in love and in life.~" Thinking of such situations, what seems to be true of the person whoemerges from the therapeutic process? To the extent that this person is open to all of his experience, he has access to all of the available data in the situation, on which to base his behavior. He has knowledgeof his ownfeelings and impulses, which are often complexand contradictory. He is freely able to sense the social demands, from the relatively rigid social "laws" to the desires of friends and family. He has access to his memoriesof similar situations, and the consequences of different behaviors in those situations. He has a relatively accurate perception of this external situation in all of its complexity. He is better able to permit his total organism, his conscious thought participating, to consider, weigh and balance each stimulus, need, and demand, and its relative weight and intensity. Out of this complex weighiag and balancing he is able to discover that course of action which seems to comeclosest to satisfying all his needs in the situation, long-range as well as immediate need~ In such a weighing and hahncing of all of the componentsof a given life choice, his organism would not by any means be infallible. Mistaken choices might be made. But because he tends to be open to his experience, there is a greater and more immediate awareness What It Meansto Becomea Person 119 of unsatisfying consequences, a quicker correction of choices which arc in error. It mayhelp to realize that in most of us the defects which interfere with this weighing and balancing are that we include things that are not a part of our experience, and exclude elements which are. Thus an individual maypersist in the concept that "I can handle liquor," whenopenness to his past experience would indicate that this is scarcely correcr~ Or a young womanmaysee only the good qualities of her prospective mate, where an openness to experience would indicate that he possesses faults as well. In general then, it appears to be true that whena client is open to his experience, he comes to find his organ~ more trustworthy. He feels less fear of the emotional reactions which he has. There is a gradual growth of trust in, and even affection for the complex, rich, varied assortment of feelings and tendencies whichexist in him at the organic leveL Consciousness, instead of being the watch_man over a dangerous and unpredictsble lot of impulses, of which few can be permitted to see the light of day, becomesthe enmfortable inhabitant of a society of impulses and feelings and thoughts, which are discovered to be very satisfactorily self-governing when not fearfully guarded. A~IS~m~AL Locus or Ev~va~oN Another trend which is evident in this process of becominga person relates to the source or locus of choices and dec~’ons, or evaluative judgments. The individual increasingly comes to feel that this locus of evaluation lies within himself. Less and less does he look to others for approval or disapproval; for s~ndards to live by; for decisions and choices. He recognizes that it rests within himself m choose; that the only question which matters is, "AmI living in a way which is deeply satisfying to me, and which tufty expresses me?" This I think is perhaps the most important question for the creative individual Perhaps it will help if I give an illustration. I would like m give a brief portion of a recorded interview with a young woman,a graduate student, whohad comefor counseling help. She was ing thlly very much disturbed about manyproblems, and had been 120 Tm~Paocms oF BzcoMm¢, lhumoN contemplating suicide. During the interview one of the feelings she discovered was her great desire to be dependent, just to let someone else take over the direction of her life. She was very. critical of those whohad not given her enoughguidance. She talked about one after another of her professors, feeling bitterly that none of them had = taught her anything with deep meaning. Gradually she began to realize that part of the difficulty was the fact that she had taken no initiative in participating in these classes. Thencomes the portion I wish to quote. I think you will find that this excerpt gives yon some indication of what it means in experience to accept the locus of evaluation as being within oneself. Here then is the quotation from one of the later interviews with this young womanas she has begun to realize that perhaps she is partly responsible for the deficiencies in her own education. C: Well now, I wonder if I’ve been going around doing that, getting smatterings of things, and not getting hold, not really getring downto things. T: Maybeyou’ve been getting just spoonfuls here and there rather than really digging in somewhererather deeply. C: M-ban- That’s why I say-- (slo,wly and very thoughtfully) well, with that sort of a foundation, well, it’s really up to me. I mean, it seems to be really apparent to me that I can’t depend on someoneelse to give me an education. (Very softly) 1’11 really have to get it myself. 7"." It really begins to come home--there’s only one person that can educate you-- a realization that perhaps nobody eLse can g/re you an education. C: M-hm.(Long pause--~ahile she sits thinking) I have all the symptomsof fright. (Laughs softly) T: Fright? That this is a scary thing, is that what you mean? C: M-hm.(Very long pause--otmiously struggling ,with feelings in herself). What It Means to Become a Person 121 T: Doyou want to say any more about what you meanby that? That it really does give you the symptomsof fright? C: (Laughs) I, uh--I don’t knowwhether I quite know. I mean--weUit really seems like I’m cut loose (pause), and seems that I’m very- I don’t know--in a vulnerable position, but I, uh, I brought this up and it, uh, somehowit almost came out without my saying it. It seems to be--it’s something I let OUt. T: Hardly a part of you. C: Well, I felt surprised. T: As though, "Well for goodness sake, did I say that?" (Both chuckle.) C: Really, I don’t think I’ve had that feeling before. I’ve--uh, well, this really feels like I’m saying something that, uh, is a part of me really. (Pause) Or, uh, (qu/te perplexed) it feels like I sort of have, uh, I don’t know. I have a feeling of ytrength, and yet, I have a feeling of-- realizing it’s so sort of fearful, of fright. T: That is, do you meanthat saying something of that sort gives you at the same time a feeling of, of strength in saying it, and yet at the same time a frightened feeling of what you have said, is that it? C: M-hm.I am feeling that. For instance, I’m feeling it internally now -- a sort of surging up, or force or outlet. As if that’s something really big and strong. Andyet, uh, well at first it was almost a physical feeling of just being out alone, and sort of cut off from a -- a support I had been carrying around. 2": You feel that it’s something deep and strong, and surging forth, and at the same time, you just feel as though you’d cut yourself loose from any support whenyou say it. C: M-hm.Maybethat’s-- I don’t know-- it’s a disturbance of a kind of pattern I’ve been carrying around, I think. T: It sort of shakes a rather significant pattern, jars it loose. C: M-hm.(Pause, then cautiously, but with conviction) L 122 T~ I~oc~ up B~OMmQA P~SON think-- I don’t kr~ow, but I have the feeling that then I am going to begin to do more things that I know I should do .... There are so manythings that I need to do. It seems in so manyavenues of my living I have to work out new ways of behavior, but-- maybe I can see myself doing a little better in some things I hope that this illustration gives some sense of the strength which is experienced in being a unique person, responsible for oneself, and also the uneasiness that accompaniesthis assumption of responsibility’. To recognize that "I am the one who chooses" and "I am the one whodetermines the value of an experience for me" is both an invigoraring and a frightening realization. WILLINGNT~ TOBEA PROCE~ I should like to point out one final characteristic of these individuals as they strive to discover and becomethemselves. It is that the individual seems to become more content to be a process rather than a product. Whenhe enters the therapeutic rehtionship, the client is likely to wish to achieve some fixed state: he wants to reach the point where his problems are solved, or where he is effective in his work, or where his marriage is satisfactory. He tends, in the freedomof the therapeutic rehtionship to drop such fixed goals, and to accept a more satisfying realization that he is not a fixed entity, but a process of becoming. One client, at the conclusion of therapy, says in rather puzzled fashion, "I haven’t finished the job of integrating and reorganizing myself, but that’s only confusing, not discouraging, nowthat I realize this is a continuing proeess .... It’s exciting, sometimes upsetting, but deeply encouraging to feel yourself in action, apparently knowing where you are going even though you don’t always consciously know where that is." One can see here both the expression of trust in the organism, which I have mentioned, and also the realization of self as a process. Here is a personal description of what it seems like to accept oneself as a s~eam of becoming, not a finished product. It means that a person is a fluid process, not a fixed and static entity; a flowing river of change, not a block of solid material; a continually changing constellation of potentialities, not a fixed quantity of traits. Wha¢ It Means to Become a Person 123 Here Is another statement of this same element of fluidity or existential living, "This whole train of experiencing, and the meanings that I have thus far discovered in it, seem to have hunchedme on a process which is both fascinating and at times a little frightening. It seems to meanletting my experiences carry meon, in a direction which appears to be forward, towards goals that I can but dimly define, as I try to understand at least the current meaning of that experience. The sensation is that of floating with a complexstream of experience, with the fascinating possibility of trying to comprehend its ever-changing complexity." ~ONCLUS[ON I have tried to tell you what has seemed to occur in the lives of people with whomI have had the privilege of being in a relationship as they struggled toward becomingthemselves. I have endeavored to describe, as accurately as I can, the meanings which seem to be involved in this process of becoming a person. I am sure that this process is not one that occurs only in therapy. I amsure that I do not see it clearly or completely, since I keep changing my Comprehension and understanding of it I hope you will accept it as a current and tentative picture, not as something tinaL One reason for stxessing the tentative nature of what I have said is that I wish to makeit clear that I am not saying, "This is what you should become;here is the goal for you." Rather, I am saying that these are someof the meaningsI see in the experiences that my orients and I have shared. Perhaps this picture of the experience of others mayilluminate or give more meaningto some of your own experience. I have pointed out that each individual appears to be asking a double question: "Whoam I?" and "HowmayI becomemyself?" I have stated that in a favorable psychological climate a process of becomingtakes place; that here the individual drops one after another of the defensive masks with which he has faced life; that he experiences fully the hidden aspects of himself; that he discovers in these experiences the stranger who has been living behind these 124 Tim PRoc~ oF BI~COMmGa Pzaso~ mssk~the stranger whois hhuself, I have tried to ~ve mypicture of the characteristic attributes of the person who emerges; a person who is more open to all of the elements of his organic experience; a person whois developing a trust in his ownorganism as an instruo me’at of sensitive living; a person who accepts the locus of evaluation as residing within himself; a person whois learning to live in his life as a participant in a fluid, ongoing process, in which he is continually discovering new aspects of himself in the flow of his experience. These are some of the elements which seemto meto be involved in becoming a person. 7 A Process Conception of Psychotherapy In the autumn of 1956 1 ~oas greatly honored Psychological Association, which bestowed uponbymethe oneAmerican of its first three Distinguished Scientific Contribution Awards. There was however a penalty attached to the award, which coos that one year later, each recipient was to present a paper to the Association. It did not appeal to me to review ¢oork which we had done in the past. I deemedrather to devote the year to a fresh attempt to understand the process by which personality changes, l did this, but as the next autumnapproached, I realized that the ideas I had formed were stiU unclear, tentative, hardly in shape [or presentation. Nevertheless I tried to set do~rn the jumbled semings which had been important to me, out of which was emerginga concept of process different from anything I had clearly perceived before. WhenI had finished I found I had a paper muchtoo long to deliver, so I cut it downto an abbreviated form for presentation on September 2, 19Y7 to the AmericanPsychological Conventionin NewYork. The present chapter is neither as long as the initial form, nor as abbreviated as the second form. It .will be discovered that though the two preceding chapters view the process of therapy almost entirely from a phenomenological point of vie,w, from ¢oithin the client’s frame of reference, this [or125 THZ I~o~es OF B~o~mc A l~z~so~ mulation ende~ors to capture those qualities of expression ~hich may be observed by another, and hence vie~s it more from an external frame of re~erence. Out of the observations recorded in this paper a "Scale of Process in Psychotherapy" has been developed ~vbicb can be applied operationally to excerpts front recorded interviews. It is still in process of revision and improvement. Even in its present form it has reasonable imer-~udge reliability, and gives meaning[ul results. Cases which by other criteria are knownto be more successful, show greater movemerit on the Process Scale than less successful cases. Also, to our surprise it has been found that successful cases begin at a higher level on the Process Scale than do unsuccessful cases. Evidently eve do not yet know, ,with any satisfactory degree of assurance, bow to be of therapeutic help to individuals whose behavior when they come to us is typical of rtages one and two as described in this chapter. Thus the ideas of this paper, poorly formed and incomplete as they seemed to me at the time, are already opening up new and challenging areas for thought and investigation. THE PVzz~z OF Paocr~ wOtrLVLmZtO take you with me on a journey of exploration. I The object of the trip, the goal of the search, is to try to learn something of the process of psychotherapy, or the process by which personality change takes place. I would warn you that the goal has not yet been achieved, and that it seems as though the expedition has advanced only a few short miles into the jungle. Yet perhaps if I can t~ke you with me, you will be tempted to discover new and profitable avenues of further advance. Myown reason for engaging in such a search seems simple to me. Just as manypsychologists have been interested in the invariant aspects of personality- the unchanging aspects of intelligence, ternperament, personality structure--so I have long been interested in ,4 Process Conception of Psyclootherapy 127 the invariant aspects of change in personality. Dopersonality and behavior change? Whatcommonalifiesexist in such changes? What commonalities exist in the conditions which precede change? Most important of all, what is the process by which such change occurs? Until recently we have for the most part tried to learn something of this process by studying outcomes. Wehave manyfacts, for example, regarding the changes which take place in serf-perception, or in perception of others. Wehave not only measuredthese changes over the whole course of therapy, but at intervals during therapy. Yet even this last gives us little clue as to the process inruined. Studies of segmented outcomes are still measures of outcome, giving little knowledge of the way in which the change takes phce. puzzling over this problem of getting at the process has led me to realize howlittle obiective research deals with process in any field. Objective research slices through the frozen momentto provide us with an exact picture of the inter-rehtionships which exist at that moment.But our understanding of the ongoing movement-whether it be the process of fermentation, or the circulation of the blood, or the process of atomic fission--is generally provided by a theoretical formulation, often supplemented, where feasible, with a clinical observation of the proce~ I have thus cometo realize that perhaps I am hoping for too muchto expect that research procedures can shed light directly upon the process of personality chang~ Perhaps only theory can do that. A RzjzcnmMza~aon WhenI determined, more than a year ago, to makea fresh attempt to understand the way in which such change takes place, I first considered various ways in which the experience of therapy might be described in terms of some other theoretical framework. There was muchthat was appealing in the field of communicationtheory, with its concepts of feedback, input and output signals, and the like. There was the possibility of describing the process of therapy in terms of learning theory, or in terms of general systems theory. As I studied these avenues of understanding I became convinced that it would be possible to translate the process of psychotherapy into 128 T~ PBcc~ oF BECOM~ a I~n~ON any one of these theoretical frameworks.It would, I believe, have certain advantages to do so. But I also becameconvinced that in a field so new, this is not what is most needed. I came to a conclusion which others have reached before, that in a new fidd perhaps what is needed first is to steep oneself in the events, to approach the phenomenawith as few preconceptions as possible, to take a naturalist’s observational, descriptive approach to these events, and to draw forth those low-levd inferences which seemmost native to the materhl i~elf. THE MonE OF APPaoAca So, for the past year, I have used the methodwhich so manyof us use for generating hypotheses, a methodwhich psychologists in this country seem so reluctant to expose or commenton. I used myself as a tool As a tool, I have qualities both good end had. For manyyears I have experienced therapy as a therapist. I have experienced it on the other side of the desk as a client. I have thought about therapy, carried on research in this field, been intimately acquainted with the research of others. But I have also formed biases, have cometo have a particular slant on therapy, have tried to develop theoretical abstractions regarding therapy. These views end theories would tend to make meless sensitive to the events themselves. Could I open myself to the phenomenaof therapy freshly, naively? Could I let the totality of my experience be as effective a tool as it might potentially be, or would my biases prevent me from seeing what was there? I could only go ahead and makethe attempt. So, during this past year I have spent manyhours listening to recorded therapeutic interviews--trying to listen as naively as possl~ole. I have endeavored to soak up all the clues I could capture as to the process, as to what elements are significant in change. Then I have tried to abstract from that sensing the simplest abstractions which would describe them. Here I have been muchstimulated and helped by the thinking of many of my colleagues, but I would like to mention my special indebtedness to Eugene Gendlin, william Kirtner and Fred Zimring, whosedemonstrated ability to think in A process Concepdon of Psychotherapy 129 new ways about these matters has been l~rfi~ly helpfiiI, and from whomI have borrowed heavily. The next step has been to rake these observations and low-level abstractions and formulate them in such a way that ~stable hypotheses can readily be drawn from them. This is the point I have reached. I makeno apology for the fact that I am reporting no empirical investigetions of these formulation~ If past experience is any guide, then I mayrest assured that, if the formulations I amabout to present check in any way with the subiective experience of other therapists, then a great deal of research will be sfimuhted, and in a few years there will be ample evidence of the degree of truth and falsity in the statements which follow. THEDIFFI~LTIESAND EXCITEME2Cr OFTHESEARCH Ir mayseem strange to you that I tell you so muchof the personal process I went through in seeking for some simple ~ and I am sure, inadequate--formulations, It is because I feel that nine-tenths of research is always submerged, and that only the iciest portion is ever seen, a very misleading segment. Only occasionally does someone like Mooney(6, 7) describe the whole of the research method as it exists in the individuaL I too should like to reveal something of the whole of this study as it went on in me, not simply the impersonal portion. Indeed I wish I might share with you muchmore fully some of the excitement and discouragement of this effort to understand proces~ I would like to tell you of my fresh discovery of the way feelings "hit" clients--a word they frequently ns~ The client is talking about something of importance, when wham!he is hit by a feeling not something named or labelled but an experiencing of an unknownsomething which has to be cautiously explored before it can be namedat alL As one client says, "It’s a feeling that I’m caught with. I can’t even know what it connects with." The frequency of this event was striking to me. Another matter of interest was the variety of ways in which clients do comecloser to their feeling~ Feelings "bubble up through," they "seep through." The client also lets himself "down 130 T~ PRc~s8 oF B~oMmo A PE~m~ into" his feeling, often v~th caotiun and fear. ’~ want to get down into this feeling. Youcan kinda see howhard it is to get really close to H" Still another of these naturalistic observations has to do with the importance which the client comesto attach to exacmessof symbolizafion. He wants just the precise word which for him describes the feeling he has experienced. An approximation will not do. Andthis is certainly for dearer communication within himself, since any one of several words would convey the meaningequally well to another. I came also to appreciate what I think of as "momentsof movement" -- momentswhenit appears that change actually occurs. These moments, with their rather obvious physiological concomitants, I will try to describe later. I would also like to mention the profound sense of despair I sometimes felt, wandering naively in the incredible complexity of the therapeutic reistionship. Small wonder that we prefer to approach therapy with manyrigid preconceptions. Wefeel we must bring order to it. We can scarcely dare to hope that we can discover order/n it. These are a few of the personal discoveries, puzzlements, and dLscouragernents which I encountered in working on this problem. Out of these camethe moreformal ideas which I would nowlike to present. A Bss~c CONDmON If we were studying the process of growth in plants, we would assume certain constant conditions of temperature, moisture and sunlight, in forming our conceptualization of the process. Likewise in conceptualizing the process of personality change in psychotherapy, I shah assume a constant and optimul set of conditions for facilitating this change. I have recently tried to spell out these conditions in some detail (8). For our present purpose I believe I can state this assumedcondition in one word. Throughootthe discussion which follows, I shall assume that the client experiences himserf as being folly received. By this I meanthat whatever his feelings--fear, despair, insecurity, anger, whatever his modeof expression- dlence, gestures, tears, or words; whatever he finds him- A Process Conception of Psychotherapy 131 self being in this moment,he senses that he is psychologically received, just as he is, by the therapist. There is implied in this term the concept of being understood, empathicaUy, and the concept of acceptance. It is also well to point out that it is the client’s experience of this condition which makes it optimal, not merely the fact of its existence in the therapist. In all that I shall say, then, about the process of change, I shall assume as a constant an optimal and maximum condition of being received. Tng F.a~a~QCox,’rnwtrOM In trying to grasp and conceptualize the process of change, I was initially looking for elements which would mark or characterize change itself. I was thinking of change as an entity, and searching for its specific attributes. What gradually emerged in my under= standing as I exposed myself to the raw material of change was a continuum of a different sort than I had conceptualized befor~ Individuals move, I began to see, not from a fixity or homeostasis through change to a new fixity, though such a process is indeed pOssible. But much the more significant continuum is from fixity to changingness, from rigid structure to flow, from stasis to proces~ I formed the tentative hypothesis that perhaps the qualities of the client’s expression at any one point might indicate his position on this continuum, might indicate where he stood in the process of change. I gradually developed this concept of a process, discriminating seven stages in it, though I would stress that it is a continuum, and that whether one discriminated three stages or fifty, there would still be all the intermediate point~ I cameto feel that a given client, taken as a whole, usually exhibits behaviors which cluster about a rehtively narrow range on this continuum. That is, it is unlikely that in one area of his life the client would exhibit complete fixity, and in another area complete changingness. He would tend, as a whole, to be at some stage in this process~ However,the process I wish to describe applies more exactly, I believe, to given areas of personal meanings, where I hypothesize that the client would, in such an area, be quite definitely at one stage, and would not exhibit characteristics of various stages. 132 Tss l~ocms oF B~oMmaa PsasoN SEw~ STA~ OF PROC~ Let methen try to portray the way in which I see the successive stages of the process by which the individual changes from fixity to flowingness, from a point nearer the rigid end of the continuumto a point nearer the "in-morion" end of the continuum, If I am correct in myobservations then it is possible that by dipping in and sampling the qualities of experiencing and expressing in a given individual, in a climate where he feels himself to be completely received, we may be able to determine where he is in this continuum of personality change. FroSTSTAGE The individual in this stage of fixity and remoteness of experiencing is not likely to come voltmtarily for therapy. HoweverI can to some degree illustrate the characteristics of this stage. There is an mrwillingness to communicateself. Communicationis only about externals. Example: "Well ru tell you, it always seems a little hit nonsemslcal to talk about one’s self except in times of dire necessity."* Feelings and personal meanings are neither recognized nor owned. Personal constructs (to borrow Kelly’s helpful term (3)) are tremely rigid. Close and communicative relationsbip~ are construed as dangerous. No problems are recognized or perceived at this stage. There is no desire to change. Example:"I think l’m practically healthy." There is muchblockage o[ internal communication. Perhaps these brief statements and examples will convey something of the psychological fixity of this end of the continuum. The ¯ The manyexamples used as illustrations are taken from recorded interviews, unless otherwise noted. For the most part they are taken from interviews which have never been published, hut a number of them are taken from the report of two cases by Lewis, Rogers and Shllea ($). ,4 Process Conception o~ Psychotherapy 1;3 individual has little or no recognition of the ebb and flow of the feeling life within him. The waysin which he construes experience have been set by his past, and are rigidly unaffected by the actualities of the present. He is (to use the term of Gendlin and Zimring) structure-bound in his manner of experiencing. That is, he reacts "to the situation of nowby finding it to be like a past experience and then reacting to that past, feeling it" (2). Differentiation of personal meanings in experience is crude or global, experience being seen largely in black and white terms. He does not communicate himself, but only communicatesabout external~ He tends to see himself as having no problems, or the problems he recognizes are perceived as entirely external to himself. There is muchblockage of internal communicationbetween self and experience. The individual at this stage is represented by such terms as stasis, fixity, the opposite of flow or change. SECOND STAGE OFPROCES$ Whenthe person in the first stage can experience himself as fully received then the second stage follows. Weseem to knowvery little about howto provide the experience of being received for the person in the first stage, but it is occasionally achieved in play or group therapy where the person con be exposed to a receiving climate, without himself having to take any initiative, for a long enough time to experience himself as received. In any event, where he does experience this, then a slight loosening and flowing of symbolic expression occurs, which tends to be characterized by the fob lowing. Expression begim to flow in regard to non-self topics. Example: "I guess that I suspect my father has often felt very insecure in his business relations" Problems are perceived as external to self. Example:"Disorganization keeps cropping up in mylife." There is no sense of personal responsibility in problems. Example: This is illustrated in the above excerp~ 134. T~ PRecis OFB~OMmG A Feelings are described as unowned, or sometimes as #ast ol~eets. Example: Counselor: "If you want to tell me something of what brought you here...." CAient: "The symptomwas--it was-just being very depressed." This is an excellent example of the way in which internal problems can be perceived and communicated about as entirely external. She is not saying "I am depressed" or even "I was depressed." Her feeling is handled as a remote, unowned object, entirely external to self. Feelings may be exhibited, but are not recognized as such or owned. Experiencing is bound by the rtnwture of the past. Example: "I suppose the compensation I always make is, rather than trying to communicatewith people or have the right relationship with them, to compensateby, well, shall we say, being on an intellectual level." Here the client is beginning to recognize the way in whichher experiencing is boundby the past. Her statement also illustrates the remoteness of experiencing at this level It is as though she were holding her experience at arm’s length. Personal constructs are rigid, and unrecognized as being constructs, but are thought of as facts. Example: "I can’t ever do anything fight-- can’t ever finish it." Differentiation of personal meanings and feelings is very limited and global. Example:The preceding exampleis a good illustration. "I can’t ever" is one instance of a black and white differentiation, as is also the use of "righf’ in this absolute sense. Contradictions n~y be expressed, but v:ith little recognition of them as contradictions. Example: "I want to know things, but I look at the same page for an hour." As a commenton this second stage of the process of change, it might be said that a numberof clients who voluntarily comefor help are in this stage, but we (and probably therapists in general) have a very modest degree of success in working with them. This A Process Conception of Psychotherapy 135 seems at least, to be a reasonable conclusion from Kirmer’s study (5), though his conceptual frameworkwas somewhatdifferent. Weseem to knowtoo little about the ways in which a person at this stage maycometo experience himself as "received." ~rAe~Tm~m If the slight loosening and flowing in the second stage is not blocked, but the client feels himself in these respects to be fully received as he is, then there is a still further loosening and flowing of symbolic expression. Here are someof the characteristics which seem to belong together at approximately this point on the continuun~ There is a freer/to~ of expression about the self as an object. Example: "I try hard to be perfect with her--cheerful, friendly, intelligent, talkative -- because I want her to love me." There is also expression about self-related experiences as objects. Example: "And yet there is the matter of, well, how muchdo you leave yourself open to marriage, and if your professional vocation is important, and that’s the thing that’s really yourself at this point, it does place a limitation on your contaet~" In this excerpt her self is such a remote object that this would probably best be classified as being between stages two and thre~ There is also expression about the self as a reflected object, existing primarily in others. Example:"I can feel myself smiling sweetly the waymymother does, or being gruff and important the waymy father does sometimes -- slipping into everyone else’s personalities but mine." There is muchexpression about or description of feelings and personal meanings not now present. Usually, of course, these are communicatiomabout past feeling~ Example: There were "so manythings I couldn’t tell peoplenasty things I did. I felt so sneaky and bad." Example: "Andthis feeling that came into mewas just the feeling that I rememberas a kid." THE~ OFBECOMn~G a Prison There is ~ery little acceptance of feelings. For the most pa~ feelings are revealed as something shameful, bad, or abnormal, or unacceptable in other ways. Feelings are exhibited, and then sometimes recognized as feelings. Experiencing is described as in the past, or as some,what remote From the self. The preceding examples illustrate thi~ Personal cormructs are rigid, but may be recognized as constructs, not external facts. Example: "I felt guilty [or so muchof my young life that I expect: I felt I de~.rved to be punished most of the time anyway. If I didn’t feel I deserved it for one thing, I felt I deserved it for another." Obviously he sees this as the wayhe has construed experience rather than as a settled fact. Example: "I’m so muchafraid wherever affection is involved it just meanssubmission. Andthis I hate, but I seem to equate the two, that if I amgoing to get affection, then it meansthat I must give in to what the other person wants to do." Differentiation of feelings and meanings is slightly sharper, less global, than in previous stages. Example: "I mean, I was saying it before, but this time I really felt it. Andis it any wonderthat I felt so darn lousy whenthis was the wayit was, that.., they did me a dirty deal plenty of times. And conversely, I was no angel about it; I realize that." There is a recognition of contradictions in experience. Example: Cfient explains that on the one hand he has expectations of doing something great; on the other hand he feels he may easily end up as a bum~ Personal choices are often seen as ineffective. The client "chooses" to do something, but finds that his behaviors do not fall in line with this choice. I believe it will be evident that manypeople who seek psychological help are at approximately the point of stage three. Theymay stay at roughly this point for a considerable time describing non- A Process Conception of rsycbotloerapy 137 present feelings and exploring the self as an object, before being ready to moveto the next stage. STAGE FOUR Whenthe client feels understood, welcomed,received as he is in the various aspects of his experience at the stage three level then there is a gradual loosening of constructs, a freer flow of feelings which aze characteristic of movementup the continuum. Wemay try to capture a number of the characteristics of this loosening, and term them the fourth phase of the proces~ The client describes moreintense feelings oF the "not-noqc-present" variety. Example: "Well, I was really --it hitme down deep." Feelings are described as ot~ects in the present. Example:"It discourages me to fed dependent becaese it means I’m kind of hopeless about myself." Occasionally feelings are expressed as in the present, sometimes breaking through almost against the client’s wishes. Example:A client, after discussing a dream inducting a bystander, dangerouSbecause of having observed his "crimes," says to the therapist, "Oh, all right, I don’t u-ust you." There is a tendency toward experiencing feelings in the immediate present, and there is distn~ and fear of this possibility. Example: "I feel bound-- by something or other. It must be me! There’s nothing else that seems to be doing it. I can’t blame it on anything else. There’s this knot--somewhereinside of m~. . . It makesmewant to get mad-- and cry--and run away!" There is little open acceptance of feelings, though some acceptance is exhibited. The two preceding examples indicate that the client exlu’bits su/ficient acceptance of his experience to approach some frightening feeling~ But there is little conscious acceptance of then~ Experiencing is less bound by the structure of the past, is less rrmote, and may occasionally occur with little postponement. 138 THEl~oa~ oF B~:o~re A l~o~a Again the two preceding examples ilium’ate very well this less tighdy bound mannerof experiencing. There is ~ loosening of the way experience is construed. There are somediscoveries of personal constructs; there is the definite recognition of these as constructs; and there is a beginning questioning of their validity. Example:"It amusesme. Why?Oh, because it’s a tittle stupid of me-- and I fed a little tense about it, or a little embarrassed,-- and a little helples~ (His voice softens and be looks sad.) Humorhas been mybulwark all mylife; maybeit’s a little out of place in trying to really look at myself. A curtain to pull down... I fed sort of at m loss right now. Wherewas I? Whatwas I saying? I lost my grip on something-- that I’ve been holding myself up with." Here there seems illustrated the jolting, shaking consequences of questioning a basic consrxuct, in thh case his use of humor as a defen:~e. There is an increased d~erentlation of feelings, constructs, personal meanings, ,u~tb sometendency toward seeking exac~essof symbolization. Example: This quality is adequately illustrated in each of the examples in this stage. There is a realization of concern about contradictions and incougr~ ances bet~zeen experience and self. Example: "I’m not living up to what I am. I really should be doing morethan I am. Howmanyhours I spent on the john in this position with Mother saying, ’Don’t come out ’rill you’ve done something.’ Produce! ... That happenedwith lots of things." This is both an example of concern about contradictions and a questioning o[ the way in which experience has been constzued. There are feelings of set~ responsibility feelings vacillate. in ffroblcms, though such Thougha close relationship still seemsdangerous, the client rifles himself, relating to some nnall extent on a feeling basis. Several of the above examples illustrate this, notably the one in which the client says, "Oh, all right, I dolt trust you." A Process Conception of Psychotherapy 139 There is no doubt that this stage and the following one constitute muchof psychotherapy as we knowit. These behaviors are very commonin any form of therapy. It may be well to remind ourselves again that a person is never wholly at one or another stage of the proees~ Listening to interviews and examining typescripts causes me to believe that a given client’s expressions in a given interview may be made up, for example, of expressions and behaviors mostly characteristic of stage three, with frequent instances of rigidity characteristic of stage two or the greater loosening of stage four. It does not seem likely that one will find examples of stage six in such an interview. The foregoing refers to the variability in the general stage of the process in which the client finds himself. If we limit ourselves to some defined area of related personal meanings in the client~ then I would hypothesize muchmore regularity; that stage three would rarely be found before stage two; that stage four would rarely follow stage two without stage three intervening. It is this kind of tentative hypothesis which can, of course, be put to empirical test: Tins Firm STAGE As we go on up the continuumwe can again try to mark a point by calling it stage five. If the client feels himself received in his expressions, behaviors, and experiences at the fourth stage then this sets in motion still further loosenings, and the freedom of organismic flow is increased. Here I believe we can again delineate crudely the qualifies of this phase of the process* Feelings are expressed freely as in the present. Example: "I expected kinda to get a severe rejection--this I expect all the time.., somehowI guess I even feel it with you.... It’s hard to talk about because I want to be the best I can possibly be with you." Here feelings regarding the therapist and the client in relationship to the therapist, emotions often most di~enit to reveal are expressed openly. " ¯ The further we go up the scale, the less adequate are examples g/yen in print. The reason for this is that the quality of experiencing becomes more important at these upper levels, and this can only be suggested by a transcript, certainly not fully communicated.Perhaps in time a series of recorded examples can b¢ made available. 140 Tm~ PRecis or B~co~mc, A P~tsoxv Feel~ngs are ~ery close to b~g fully e~enced. They "bubble uP," "seep thrOUgh"in spite of the fear and distrust which the client feels at experiencing them v2ith fuliness and immediacy. Example: "That kinda came out and I just don’t understand it. (Long pause) I’m trying to get hold of what that terror is." Example: Client is talking about an external event. Suddenly six© gets a pained, stricken look. Therapist: "What-- what’s hitting you now?" Client: "I don’t know. (She cries) ... I must have been getting a little too close to something I didn’t want to talk about, or something." Here the feeling has almost seeped through into awareness in spite of her. Example: "I feel stopped right now. Whyis my mindblank right now? I feel as if I’m hanging onto something, and I’ve been letting go of other things; and something in me is saying, ’What more do I have to give up?’" There is a beginning tendency to realize tb~ experiencing a feeling involves a direct referent. The three examples iust cited illustrate this. In each case the client knows he has experienced something, knows he is not clear as to what he has experienced. But there is also the dawning realization that the referent of these vague cognitions lies within him, in an organismic event against which he can check his symbolization and his cognitive formuhtioo~ This is often shownby expressions that indicate the closenes~ or distance he feels from this referent. Example: ’7 really don’t have my finger on it. I’m iust kinda describing it." There is surprise and fright, rarely pleasure, at the feelings which "bubble through." Example: Client, talking about past home relationships, "That’s not important any more. Hmm.(Pause) That was somehowvery meaningful--but I don’t have the slightest idea why .... yes, that’s it! I can forget about it nowand--why, it isn’t that important. Wow!All that miserableness and stuff!" Example: Client has been expressing his hopelesmesa. "I’m still A process Conception of Psychotherapy 141 amazedat the strength of ~ It seems to be so muchthe way I feeL" There is an increasing o~nersbip of self feelings, and a desire to be these, to be the "real me." Example: "The real truth of the matter is that I’m not the sweet, forebearing guy that I try to makeout that I am. I get irritated at things. I feel like snapping at people, and I feel like being selfish at times; and I don’t knowwhyI should pretend I’m not that way." This is a clear instance of the greater degree of acceptance of all feelings. Experiencing is loosened, no longer remote, and frequently occurs ~tb little postponement. There is little delay between the organismic event and the full subjective living of it. A beautifully precise account of this is given by a client. Example: "I’m still having a little trouble trying to figure out what this sadness -- and the weepiness-- mean~I just knowI feel it whenI get close to a certain kind of feeling--and usually when I do get weepy, it helps me to kinda break through a waft I’ve set up because of things that have happened. I feel hurt about something and then automatically this kind of shields things up and then I feel like I can’t really touch or feel anything very much.., and if I’d be able to feel, or could let myself feel the instantaneous feeling when I’m hurt, I’d immediately start being weepy right then, but I can’t." Here we see him regarding his feeling as an inner referent to which he can turn for greater clarity. As he senses his weepiness he realizes that it is a delayed and partial experiencing of being hurt. He also recognizes that his defenses are such that he cannot, at this point, experience the event of hurt whenit occum The ,ways in ,which experience is construed are muchloosened. There are manyfresh discoveries of personal constructs as constructs, and a critical examination and questioning of these. Example: A man says, "This idea of needing to please--of having to do it- that’s really been kind of a basic assumption of my 142 T~ P~c~,~ oF BF, COM~G A P]~LSON rife (be weeps quietly). It’s kind of, you know, just one of the very unquestioned ~xioms that I have to please. I have no choice. I just bare to." Here he is clear that this assumption has been a constrnet, and it is evident that its unquestioned status is at an end. Tbere is a strong and evident tendency toward exactness in di[farentiation of feelings and meanings. Example: "... some tension that grows in me, or some hopeles~ hess, or some ldnd of incompleteness-- and my life actually is very incomplete right now .... I just don’t know. Seems to be, the closest thing it gets to, is hopelessness." Obviously, he is trying to capture the exact term which for him symbolizes his experience. Tbere is an increasingly clear facing of contradictions and incongruences in experience. Example:"Myconscious mind tells me I’m worthy. But some place inside I don’t believe it. I think I’m a zat--a no-good, l’v¢ no faith in my ability to do anything." There is an increasing quality of acceptance of self-respon~bility for the problems being faced, and a concern as to bow be has contributed. There are increasingly freer dialogues ~itbin the self, an hnprovement in and reduced blockage of internal corfan~nication. Sometimesthese dialogues are verbalized. Example: "Something in me is saying, "What more do I have to give up? You’ve taken so muchfrom me already.’ This is me talkhag to me--the me way back in there whotalks to the me who runs the show. It’s complaining now, saying, ’You’re getting too close! Go away!’" Example: Frequently these dialogues are in the form of listening to oneself, to check cogtfitive formulations against the direct referent of experiencing. Thus a client says, "Isn’t that funny? I never really looked at it that way. I’m just trying to check it. It always seemed to me that the tension was much more externally caused than this--that k wasn’t somethingI used ha tiffs way. But it’s true -- it’s really true." I m~t that the examples I have given of this frith phase of be- A process Conception of Psychotherapy 14~ cominga process will makeseveral points clear. In the first phce this phase is several hundred psychological miles from the first stage described. Here manyaspects of the client are in flow, as against the rigidity of the first stage. He is very muchcloser m his organic being, which is always in process. He is much closer to being in the flow of his feelings. His constructiom of experience are decidely loosened and repeatedly being tested against referents and evidence within and without. Experience is much more highly differentiated, and thus internal communication, already flowing, can be muchmore exact~ F_~MVLgS OFPaOCV.ss~ O~gAar~ Since I have tended to speak as though the client as a whole is at one stage or another, let me stress again, before going on to describe the next stage, that in given areas of personal meaning, the process may drop below the client’s general level because of experiences which are so sharply at variance with the concept of self. Perhaps I cen illustrate, from a single area in the feelings of one client, something of the way the process I am describing operates in one narrow segment of experiencing. In a ease reported rather fully by Shlien (5) the quality of the self-expression in the interviews has been at appro~ately points three and four on our continuumof procesg Then whenshe turns to the area of sexual problems, the process takes up at a lower level on the continuum. In the sixth interview she feels that there are things it would be impossible to tell the therapist--then "After long pause, mentions almost inaudibly, an itching sensation in the area of the recrmn, for which a physician could find no cause." Here a problem is viewed as completely external to self, the quality of experiencing is very remote. It would appear to be characteristic of the second stage of process as we have described it. In the tenth interview, the itching has movedto her tinger~ Then with great embarrassment, describes undressing games and other sex activities in childhood. Here too the quality is that of telling of nonself activities, with feelings described as past objects, though it is dearly somewhatfurther on the continuum of procesg She con- 144 T~ Paoc~s oF B~c.oMmcA PEasoN cludes "because I’m just bad, dirty, that’s all." Here is an expression about the self and an undifferentiated, rigid personal construct. The quality of this is that of stage three in our process, as is also the following statement about self, showing more differentiation of personal meanings. "I think inside I’m oversexed, and outside not sexy enoughto attract the response I want.... I’d like to be the same inside and out." This last phrase has a stage four quality in its faint questioning of a personal constru~ In the twelfth interview she carries this questioning further, deciding she was not just born to be promiscuous. This has cleurly a fourth stage quality, definitely challenging this deep-seated way of construing her experience. Also in this interview she acquires the courage to say to the therapist; "You’re a man, a good looking man, and my whole problem is men like you. It would be easier if you were elderly--easier, but not better, in the long run." She is upset and embarrassed having said this and feels "it’s like being naked, I’m so revealed to you." Here an immediate feeling is expressed, with reluctance and fear to be sure, but expressed, not described. Experiencing is much less remote or structure bound, and occurs with little postponement, but with muchhek of acceptance. The sharper differentiation of meanings is dearly evident in the phrase "easier but not better." All of this is fully characteristic of our stage four of process. In the fifteenth interview she describes manypast experiences and feelings regarding sex, these having the quality of both the third and fourth stage as we have presented them. At some point she says, "I wanted to hurt myself, so I started going with men whowould hurt me--with their penises. I enjoyed it, and was being hurt, so I had the satisfaction of being punished for my enjoyment at the same time." Here is a way of construing experience which is perceived as just that, not as an external fact. It is also quite dearly being questioned, though this questioning is implicit. There is recognition of and some concern regarding the contradictory elements in experiencing enjoyment, yet feeling she should be punished. These qualities are all fully characteristic of the fourth stage or even slightly beyond. A bit later she descn~oes her intense past feelings of shameat her A process Conception of Psychotherapy 145 enjoyment of se~ Her two sisters, the "neat, respected daughtet~’ could not have orgasms, "so again I was the bad ou~" Up to point this again illustrates the fourth stage. Then suddenly she asks "Or am I really lucky?" In the quality of present expression of a feeling of puzzlement, in the "bubbling through" quality, in the immediate experiencing of this wonderment,in the frank and definite questioning of her previous personal construct, this has clearly the qualities of stage five, which we have just described. She has movedforward in this process, in a climate of accaptance~ a very considerable distance from stage two. I hope this exampleindicates the way in whichan individual, in a given area of personal meanings, becomes more and more loosened, more and more in motion, in process, as she is received. Perhaps, too, it will illustrate what I believe to be the ease, that this process of increased flow is not one which happens in minutes or hours, but in weeks, or months. It is an irregularly advancing process, sometimes retreating a bit, sometimesseeming not to advance as it broadens out to cover moreterritory, but finally proceeding in its further flow. THESIXTH STAGE If I have been able to communicatesomefeeling for the scope and quality of increased loosening of feeling, experiencing and construing at each stage, then we are ready to look at the next stage which appears, from observation, to be a very crucial one. Let me see if I can convey what I perceive to be its characteristic qualifies. Assumingthat the client oontinues to be fully received in the therapeurie relationship then the characteristics of stage five tend to be followed by a very distinctive and often dramatic phase. It is characterized as follows~ ,4 feeling ,which has previously been "stuck," has been inhibited in its process quality, is experienced ,with intrnediacy no~. ,4 feeling flows to its full result. ,4 present feeling is directly experienced ,~ith immediacyand rich~S$o This immediacy of experiencing, and the feeling ,which con- Ttm ~oc~a o~ BROOMmO A PriSONa stltutes its content, are accepted. This is something ~vblcb is, not something to be denied, feared, struggled against. All the preceding sentences attempt to describe slightly different facets of what is, when it occurs, a clear and definite phenomenon. It would take recorded examples to communicateits full quality, but I shall try to give an illustration without benefit of recording. A somewhatextended excerpt from the 80th interview with a young man may communicatethe way in which a client comes into stage si~ Example: ’q could even conceive of it as a possibility that I could have a kind of tender concern for me.... Still, how could I be tender, be concerned for myself, whenthey’re one and the sarae thing? But yet I can feel it so clearly .... Youknow,like taking care of a child. Youwant to give it this and give it that.... I can kind of clearly see the purposes for somebodyelse.., but I can never see them for.., myself, that I could do this for me, you know. Is it pos~’ble that I can really want to take care of myself, and make that a major purpose of mylife? That meansI’d have to deal with the whole world as if I were guardian of the most cherished and most wanted possession, that this I was between this precious me that I wanted to take care of and the whole world .... It’s almost as if I loved myself -- you know --that’s strange -- but it’s true." Therapist: It seems such a strange concept to realize. Whyit would mean "I would face the world as though a part of my primary responsibility was taking care of this precious individual who is me -- whomI lovC’ Client: Whom I care for--whomI feel so close to. Woof!I That’s another s~range one. Therapist: It iust seems weird. Client: Ycah. It hits rather close somehow.The idea of mylovhag me and the taking care of me~ (His eyes Oow moist.) ThaWs a very nice one -- very nice." The recording would help to convey the fact that here is a feeling which has never been able to flow in him, which is experienced with immediacy, in this moment. It is a feeling which flows to its full result, without inhibition. It is experienced acceptantly, with no attemot to rush it to one side, or to deny it. .4 Process Conception of Psychotherapy 147 There is a quality of liz~ng subjectively in the experience, ~ feding about it. The client, in his words, may withdraw enough from the expefieace to feel about it, as in the above example, yet the recording makes it clear that his words are peripheral to the experiencing which is going on within him, and in which he is living. The best communicationof this in his words is "Woof! ! That’s another strange one." Self as an object tends to disappear. The serf, at this moment,is this feeling. This is a being in the moment,with little serf-couscious awareness, but with primarily a reflexive awareness, as Sartte terms it. The self is, subjectivdy, in the existential moment.It is not somethingone pereeive~ Experiencing, at this stage, takes on a real process quality. Example: One client, a man who is approaching this stage, says that he has a frightened feeling about the source of a lot of secret thoughts in himself. He goes on; "The butterflies are the thoughts closest to the surfac~ Underneaththere’s a deeper flow. I feel very removedfrom it all The deeper flow is like a great school of fish movingunder the surfac~ I see the ones that break through the surface of the water-- sitting with myfishing line in one hand, with a bent pin on the end of it--trying to find a better taclde -or better yet, a way of diving in. That’s the scary thing. The image I get is that I want to be one of the fish myself." Therapist: "You want to be downthere flowing along, too." Thoughthis client is not yet fully experiencing in a process manner, and hence does not fully exemplify this sixth point of the continuum, he foresees it so dearly that his description gives a real sense of its meaning. Another characteristic of this stage of process is the #bysiologicd loosening ~bicb accompanies it. Moistness in the eyes, tears, sighs, muscular relaxation, are frequently evident. Often there are other physiological concomitant. I would hypothesize that in these momentS,had we the measure for it, we would disoovex improved circulation, improved conductivity 148 T~ l~oczss oF BecoMn~o A l:~.P.so~ of nervous impulses. Anexample of the "primitive" nature of some of these sensations may be indicated in the foUowingexcerpt. Example:The client, a young man, has expressed the wish his parents would die or disappear. "It’s kind of like wanting to wish them away, and wishing they had never been . . . And I’m so ashamed of myself because then they call me, and off I go -- swish! They’re somehowstill so strong. I don’t know. There’s some urn= bilical--I can almost feel it inside me--swish (and be gestures, plucking himself away by grasping at his navel.)" Therapist: "They really do have a hold on your umbilical cord." Client: "It’s funny how real it feels... It’s like a burning sensation, kind of, and whenthey say something which makes meanxious I can feel it tight here (pointing). I never thought of it quite that way." Therapist: "As though if there’s a disturbance in the rehtionship between you, then you do just feel it as though it was a strain on your umbilicus." Client: "Yeah, kind of like in my gut here. It’s so hard to define the feeling that I feel there." Here he is living subjectively in the feeling of dependence on his parents. Yet it would be most inaccurate to say that he is perceiving g He is/n it, experiencing it as a strain on his umbilical cord. In this stage, internal communicationis free and relatively unblocked. I believe this is quite adequately illustrated in the examples given. Indeed the phrase, "internal communication" is no longer quite correct, for as each of these examples illustrates, the crucial moment is a momentof integration, in which communicationbetween different internal loci is no longer necessary, because they becomeone. The incongruence between experience and awareness is z/svidl:y experienced as it disappears into congruence. The relevant personal construct is dissolved in this experiencing moment, and the client feels cut loose from his previously stabilized frar~e~ork. I trust these two characteristics mayacquire moremeaningfrom the following example. A young manhas been having di~culty getting close to a certain unknownfeeling. "That’s almost exactly" A Process Conceptlon o~ Psy~:~nerapy 149 what the feeling is, too -- it was that I was living so muchof my life, and seeing so muchof mylife in terms of being scared of something." He telis howhis professional activities are just to give him a tittle safety and %little world where I’li be secure, you know. And for the same reason. (Pause) I was kind of letting it seep through. But I also tied it in with you and with my relationship with you, and one thing I feel about it is fear of its going away. (His tone changes to role-play more accurately his feeling.) Won’t you let mehave this? I kind of need it. I can be so lonely and scared without it." Therapist: "M-hm,m-hm.’Let me hang on to it because I’d be terribly scared if I didn’t! . . . It’s a kind of pleading thing too, isn’t it?" Client: "I get a sense of--it’s this kind of pleading little boy. It’s this gesture of begging. (Putting his bands up as if in prayer.) Therapist: "Youput your hands in kind of a supplication." Client: "Yeah, that’s right. ’Won’t you do this for me?’ kind of. Oh, that’s terrible! Who,Me?Beg? . . . That’s an emotion I’ve never felt clearly at all--something I’ve never been... (Pause) ¯.. I’ve got such a confusing feeling. One is, it’s such a wondrous feeling to have these new things come out of me. It amazes me so mucheach time, and there’s that same feeling, being scared that I’ve so muchof this. (Tears) ... I just don’t knowmyself. Here’s suddenly something I never realized, hadn’t any inkling of--that it was some thing or way I wanted to be." Here we see a complete experiencing of his pleadingness, and a vivid recognition of the discrepancy between this experiencing and his concept of himself. Yet this experiencing of discrepancy exists in the momentof its disappearance. Fromnowon he/s a person who feels pleading, as well as manyother feelings. As this momentdissolves the way he has construed himself he feels cut bose from his previous world -- a sensation which is both wondrousand frightening. The momentof full experiencing becomes a clear and definite referent. The examples given should indicate that the client is often not too I$0 T~ Paoc~s oI~ BECOMING A PEnsoN clearly aware of what has "hit him" in these moments. Yet this does not seem too important because the event is an entity, a referent, which can be returned to, again and again, if necessary, to disCover more about it. The pleadingnesa, the feeling of "loving myseLP’which are present in these examples, may not prove to be exactly as descn’oed. They are, however, solid points of reference to which the client can return until he has satisfied himself as to what they are. It is, perhaps, that they constitute a clear-cut physiological event, a substratum of the conscious life, which the client can retur~ to for investigatory purposes. Gendlin has called my attention to this sigrdficant quality of experiencing as a referent. He is endeavoring to build an extension of psychological theory on this basis. (I) Differantiatian # experiencing is sharp and bash:. Because each of these momentsis a referent, a specific entity, it: does not becomeconfused with anything else. The process of sharp differentiation builds on it and about iu In this stage, there are no longer "problems," e~ernal or internal. The client is living, subjectively, a phase of his problem. It is not wtz object. I trust it is evident that in any of these examples, k would be grossly inaccurate to say that the client perceives his problem as internal, or is dealing with k as an internal problem. Weneed some way of indicating that he is further than this, and of course enormouslyfar in the process sense from perceiving his problem as external The best description seems to be that he neither perceives his problem nor deals with it. He is simply living some portion of it knowingly and acceptingiy. I have dwelt so long on this sixth definable point on the process Continuumbecause I see it as a highly crucial one. Myobservation is that these momentsof immediate, full, accepted experiencing are in somesense almost irreversible. To put this in terms of the examples, it is myobservation and hypothesis that with these clients, whenever a future experiencing of the same quality and characteristics occurs, it will necessarily be recognized in awareness for what k is: a tender earing for self, an umbilical bond which makes him a A Process Conceptionof PsycbotberaOy 151 part of his parents, or a pleading small-boy dependence, as the case may be. And, it might be remarked in passing, once an experience is fully in awareness, fully accepted, then it can be coped with effectively, like any other clear reality. TH~SEVENTH STAGE In those areas in which the sixth stage has been reached, it is no longer so necessary that the client be fully received by the therapist, though this still seems helpful. However, because of the tendency for the sixth stage to be irrevem’ble, the client often seems to go on into the seventh and final stage without much need of the therapist’s help. This stage occurs as muchoutside of the therapeutic relationship as in it, and is often reported, rather than experienced in the therapeutic hour, I shall try to describe some of its characterictica as I feel I have observed them. Newfeelings are experienced with immediacyand riclmess of detail, both in the therapeutic relationship and outside. The experiencing of such feelings is used as a clear referent. The client quite consciously endeavors to use these referents in order to knowin a clearer and more differentiated way who he is, what he wants, and what his attitudes are. This is true even when the feelings are unpleasant or frightening. There is a gro,wing and continuing sense of acceptant om~ersbip of these changing feelings, a basic trust in his man process. This trust is not primarily in the conscious processes which go on, but rather in the total organismic proces~ One client describes the way in which experience characteristic of the sixth stage looks to him, describing it in terms characteristic of the seventh stage. "In therapy here, what has counted is fitting down and saying, ’this is what’s bothering me,’ and play around with it for awhile until something gets squeezed out through some emotional crescendo, and the thing is over with- looks differen~ Even then, I can’t tell just exactly what’s happened. It’s just that I exposed something, shook it up and turned it around; and whenI put it back it felt better. It’s a little frustrating because I’d like to knowexacdy what’s going on .... This is a funny thing because it feels as if I’m 152 T~ Paoczss oI~ BzcoMmo A P~tsoN n~t doing anything at all about it--the only active part I take is to h to be alert and grab a thought as it’s going by... And there’s sort of a feeling, ’Well now, what win I do with it, nowthat I’ve seen it right?’ There’s no handles on it you can adjust or anything. Just talk about it awhi]e, and let it go. And apparently that’s all there is to it. Leaves me with a somewhatunsatisfied feeling though a feeling that I haven’t accomplished anything. It’s been accomplished without my knowledge or consent.... The point is rm not sure of the quality of the readjustment because I didn’t get to see it, to check on it.... All I can do is observe the facts--that I look at things a little differently and am less anxious, by a long shot, and a lot more active. Things are looking up in general I’m very" happy with the way things have gone. But I feel sort of like a spectator." A few momentslater, following this rather grudging acceptance of the process going on in him, he adds, ’q seem to work best whenmy conscious mind is only concerned with facts and letting the analysis of them go on by itself without paying any" attention to it." Experiencing has lost almost completely its structure-bound aspects and becomes process experiencing-- that is, the situation is experienced and interpreted in its newness, not as the pa~. The example given in stage six suggests the quality I am trying to describe. Another example in a very specific area is given by a client in a follow-up interview as he explains the different quality that has comeabout in his creative work. It used to be that he tried to be orderly. "You begin at the beginning and you progress regularly through to the end." Nowhe is aware that the process in himself is different. "WhenI’m working on an idea, the whole idea develops like the latent image comingout whenyou develop a photograph. It doesn’t start at one edge and fill in over to the other. It comes in all over. At ill’st all you see is the hazy outline, and you wonder what it’s going to be; and then gradually something fits here and something fits there, and pretty soon it all comesclear all at once." It is obvious that he has not only cometo trust this process, but that he is experiencing it as it is, not in terms of some pare A Process Conception of Psyebotheropy 1S3 The self becomes increasingly simply the mbjective and re[texice awareness of experiencing. Ttoe self is muchless frequently a perceived object, and ntucb more frequently something confidently felt in process. An example may be taken from the same follow-up interview with the client quoted above. In this interview, because he is reporting his experience since therapy, he again becomesaware of himself as an object, but it is clear that this has not been the quality of his day-byday experience. After reporting many changes, he says, "I hadn’t really thought of any of these things in connection with therapy until tonight... ¯ (lokingly) Gee! maybesomething d/d happen. Because my life since has been differen~ Myproductivity has gone up. Myconfidence has gone up. I’ve becomebrash in situations I would have avoided before. And also, I’ve becomemuch less brash in situations where I would have becomevery obnoxious before." It is clear that only afterward does he realize what his self has been. Personal constructs are tentatively refornmlmed, to be ~alidated against further experience, but even then, to be held loosely. A client describes the wayin which such a construct changed, between interviews, toward the end of therapy. "I don’t knowwhat (changed), but I definitely feel different about looking back at my childhood, and some of the hostility about my mother and father has evaporated. I sobstimted for a feeling of resentment about them a sort of acceptance of the fact that they did a number of things that were undesirable with me. But I substituted a sort of feeling of interested excitement that--geenowthat l’m finding out what was wrong, I can do something about it--correct their mistakes." Here the way in which he construes his experience with his parents has been sharply altered. Another example maybe taken from an interview with a client whohas always felt that he had to please people. "I can see . . . what it would be like-- that it doesn’t matter if I don’t please yon --that pleasing yon or not pleasing you is not the thing that is important to me. If I could just kinda say that to people--you know?... the idea of just spontaneously saying something -- and it not mattering whether it pleases or not-- Oh God! you could say T~ l~o~s oP BEenMmG A PERSO~ almost ~ythmg: But that’s true, you know." Anda li~e hter he asks himself, with mcrcduli~, "You meanif I’d really he what I feel like being, that that would be all right?" He is struggling toward a reconstrulng of some very basic aspects of his experience. Internal conmmnication is clear, with feelings and symbols well matched, and fresh terms for new feelings. There is the experiencing of effective choice of newways of being. Because all the elements of experience are available to awareness, choice becomesreal and effective. Here a client is just comingto this realization. "I’m trying to encompass a way of talking that is a way out of being scared of talking. Perhaps just kind of thinking oat loud is the way to do that. But I’ve got so manythoughts I could only do it a little bit. But maybeI could let my talk be an expression of my real thoughts, instead of just trying to makethe proper noises in each situatiorL" Here he is sensing the pom%ility of effective choice. Another client comes in telling of an ~rgument he had with his wife. "I wasn’t so angry with myself. I didn’t hate myself so much. I realized ’I’m acting childishly’ and somehowI chose to do that." It is not easy to find examples by which to illustrate this seventh stage, because relatively few clients fully achieve this point. Let me try to summarize briefly the qualities of this end point of the continumn. ¯ Whenthe individual has, in his process of change, reached the seventh stage, we find ourselves involved in a new dimension. The client has now incorporated the quality of motion, of flow, of changingness, into every aspect of his psychological life, and this becomesits outstanding characteristic. He lives in his feelings, knowingly and with basic trust in them and acceptance of them. The ways in which he construes experience are continually changing as his personal constructs are modified by each new living event. His experiencing is process in nature, feeling the new in each situation and interpreting it anew, interpreting in terms of the past only to the extent that the now is identical with the past. He experiences with a quality of immediacy, knowing at the same time that he e.x- A Process Conception of psychotherapy 175 periences. He values exactness in differentiation of his feelings and of the personal meanings of his experience. His internal communication between various aspects of himself is free and unblocked. He communicateshimself freely in relationships with others, and these relationships are not stereotyped, but person to person. He is aware of himself, but not as an object. Rather it is a reflexive awareness, a subjective living in himself in motion. He perceives himself as responsibly related to his problem~Indeed, he feels a fully responsible relationship to his life in all its fluid aspeet~ He lives ’fully in himself as a constantly changing flow of proces~ SOME Qozs~oNs~n~c Tats Paocr.ss Com-mxvJM Let me try to anticipate certain questions which may be raised about the process I have tried to deser~ Is this the process by which personality changes or one of many kinds of change? This I do not know. Perhaps there are several types of process by which personality change~I wouldonly specify that this seems to be the process which is set in motion whenthe individual experiences himself as being fully received. Doesit apply in all psychotherapies, or is this the process which occurs in one psychotherapeutic orientation only? Until we have more recordings of therapy from other orientations, this question cannot be answered. However, I would hazard a guess that perhaps therapeutic approaches which place great stress on the cognitive and little on the emotional aspects of experience mayset in motion an entirely different process of change. Wouldeveryone agree that this is a desirable process of change, that it moves in valued directions? I believe no~ I believe some people do not value fluidity. This will be one of the social value judgments which individuals and cultures will have m make. Such a process of change can easily be avoided, by reducing or avoiding those relationships in which the individual is fully received as he ig Is change on this continuum rapid? Myobservation is quite the contrary. Myinterpretation of Kirmer’s study (4), which may slightly different from his, is that a client might start therapy at about stage two and end at about stage four with both client and therapist being quite legitimately satisfied that substantial progress Tm~ I~e~E~ o~, Br~COMmGA I~ had been made. It would occur very rarely, if ever, that a client who fully exemplified stage one would move to a point where he fully exemplified stage seven. If this did occur, it would involve a matter of years. Are the descriptive items properly grouped at each stage? I fed sure that there are manyerrors in the way I have grouped my observarious. I also wonder what important elements have been omitted. I wonderalso if the different elements of this continuum might not be more parsimoniously described. All such questions, however, maybe given an empirical answer, if the hypothesis I san setting forth has merit in the eyes of various research workers. S~Y I have tried to sketch, in a crude and pre "luninary manner, the flow of a process of change winch occurs whena client experiences himself as being received, welcomed, understood as he is. This process involves several threads, separable at first, becoming more of a unity as the process continues. This process involves a loosening of feelings. At the lower end of the continuum they are described as remote, unowned, and not nowpresen~ Theyare then described as present objects with some sense of ownersinp by the individuaL Next they are expressed as ownedfeelings in terms closer to their immediate experiencing. Still further up the scale they are experienced and expressed in the immediate present with a decreasing fear of this process. Also, at this point, even those feelings winch have been previously denied to awareness bubble through into awareness, are experienced, and increasingly owned.At the upper end of the continuumliving in the process of experiencing a continually changing flow of feelings becomes characteristic of the individuaL The process involves a change in the manner of experiencing. The continuum begins with a fixity in which the individual is very remote from his experiencing and unable to draw upon or symbolize its implicit meaning. Experiencing must be safely in the past before a meaning can be drawn from it and the present is interpreted in terms of these past meanings. From this remoteness in relation to his experiencing, the individual moves toward the recognition of A Process Conception of Psychotherapy 157 experiencing as a troubling process going on within ~ Experiencing gradually becomes a more accepted inner referent m which he can rum for increasingly accurate meauing~Finally he becomes able to five freely and acceptanfly in a fluid process of expedencing, using it comfortably as a major reference for his behavior. The process involves a shift from incengmenceto congruence. The continuumruns from a maximum of incongruence which is quite unknownto the individual through stages where there is an increasingly sharp recognition of the contradictions and discrepancies existing within himseff to the experiencing of incongrnence in the immediatepresent in a way which dissolves rh~ At the upper end of the continuum, there would never be more than temporary incongruence between experiencing and awareness since the individual would not need to defend himseff against the threatening aspects of his experience. The process involves a change in the mannerin which, and the extent to which the individual is able and willing to communicate himself in a receptive climate. The continuum runs from a complete unwillingness to communicateself to the self as a rich and changing awareness of internal experiencing which is readily communicated when the individual desires to do so. The process involves a loosening of the cognitive mapsof experience. Fromconstruing experience in rigid ways which are perceived as external facts, the client movestoward developing changing, loosely held consm~gsof meaningin experience, constrncfions which are modifiable by each new experience. There is a change in the individual’s reisdonship to his problen~ At one end of the continuumproblems are unrecognized and there is no desire to change. Gradually there is a recognition that problems exist. At a further stage, there is recognition that the individual has contributed to these problems, that they have not arisen entirely from external sources. Increasingly, there is a sense of selfresponsibility for the problems. Further up the continuum there is a living or experiencing of some aspect of the problem~The person lives his problems subjectively, feeling responsible for the con~ibution he has madein the developmentof his problerr~ There is change in the individual’s manner of relating. At one end 158 THE PKoc~s oF B~coMn~ A PmtsoN Of the continuum the individual avoids close rehfiouships, which are perceived as being dangerous. At the other end of the continuum, he lives openly and freely in relation to the themplst and to others, guiding his behavior in the rehtionship on the basis of his immediate experiencing. In general, the process movesfrom a point of fixity, where all the dements and threads described above arc separately discernible and separately understandable, to the flowing peak momentsof therapy in which all these threads becomeinseparably woventogether. In the new experiencing with immediacywhich occurs at such moments, feeling and cognition interpenetrate, self is subjectively present in the experience, volition is simply the subjective following of a harmonious balance of organismic direction. Thus, as the process reaches this point the person becomesa unity of flow, of motion. He has changed, but what seems most significant, he has becomean integrated process of changingnem. REFERENCES I. Gendlin, E. Ez~eriencing and the Cre#rtion of Me~ing(tentative title). Glencoe, IlL: Free Press. (In Press) (Especially Chap. 2. Gendlin, E., and F. Zimring. The qualities or dimensions of experiencing and their change. Counseling Center Discussion Papers I, #3, Oct. 1955. University of Chicago Counseling Center. 3. Kelly, G. A. The psychology of personal constructs. VoL1. New York: Norton, 1955. 4. Kirmer, W. L., and D. S. Carrwrighu Success and failure in clientcentered therapy as a function of initial in-therapy behavior. ]. CoTLrult. PsycboL, 1958, 22, 329-333. S. Lewis, M. K, C. R. Rogers, and John M. Shlien- Twocases of time- A Process Conception o~ Psychotherapy 159 limited client-centered psychotherapy. In Burton, A. (Ed.), Case Studies of Counseling and Psychotherapy. NewYork: Prentice-Hafi~ 1959, 309-352. 6. Mooney,IL L. The researcher himself. In Research for curriodum improvement. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n., 1957, Chap. 7. 7. Mooney,R. L. Problems in the development of research men. Educ. Reseorcb Bull., 30, 1951, 141-150. 8. Rogers, C. R. The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. J. Co~ult. Psycbol., 1957, 21, 95-103. PART IV A Philosophy of Persons 1 have formed some philosophical impressions of the life and goal toward ,which the individual moves when be is ~ree. i 8 "To Be That Self Which One Truly Is" A Therapist’s View of Personal Goals .t In tloese most psyclmlogists regard it as an ttoey this are accuseddays of thinking philosophical thoughts. I im~t do notif share reaction. I cannot help but puzzle over the meaning of ~bat I observe. Someof these meanings seem to bare exciting implications for our modern.,vorld. In 19Y7Dr. Russell Becker, a friend, former student and colleague of mine, invited me to give a special lecture to an all-college convocation at Wooster College in Ohio. I decided to work out more clearly for myself the meaning of ttoe personal directions ~bicb clients seem to take in the free climate of the therapeutic relationship. WIoonthe paper ~ finished I bad grave doubts that 1 bad expressed anything ~bicb ~vas in any ~oay new or significant. The rather astonisbingiy long.continued applause of the audience relieved my fears to some degree. As the passage of time has enabled me to look more objectively st ~lsat 1 said, I feel satisfaction on moocounts. I believe it expresses ¯vell the observations ~vbicb for me hove crystallized into t~vo important themes: my confidence in tloe humanorganism, ~ben it is functioning freely; and the existential quality of satisfying living, a theme presented by some of our most modernphilosophers, qubich 163 A I~m~oPsYoF I~so~’s bowew~beautifully expressed more then twenty-five centuries ago by Lao-t~u, ,when he said, "The ~vay to do is to be." TEO~ ~ON$ "What is my goal in life?" "What am I striving for?" "What is my purpose?" These are questions which every individual asks himself at one time or another, sometimes calmly and meditatively, sometimes in agonizing uncertainty or despair. They are old, old questions which have been asked and answered in every century of history. Yet they are also questions which every individual must ask and answer for ~, in his ownway. They are questions which I, as a counselor, hear expressed in manydiffering ways as menand womenin personal distress try to learn, or understand, or choose, the directions which their lives are taking. In one sense there is nothing new which can be said about these questions. Indeed the opening phrase in the title I have chosen for this paper is taken from the writings of a manwhowrestled with these questions more than a century ago. Simply to express another personal opinion about this whole issue of goals and purposes would seem presumpmous~But as I have worked for manyyemm with troubled and maladjusted individuals I believe that I can discern a pattern, a trend, a commonality,an orderliness, in the tentative answers to these questions which they have found for thenaselves. Andso I would like to share with you my perception of what humanbeings appear to be striving for, when they are free to choos~ SOME ANS’WEI~ Before trying to take you into this world of myownexperience with my orients, I would like to remind you that the questions I have mentioned are not pseudo-questions, nor have menin the past or at the present time agreed on the answers. Whenmen in the past have asked themselves the purpose of life, some have answered, in the words of the catechism, that "the chief end of man is to glorify God." Others have thought of life’s purpose as being the preparation of oneself for immortality. Others have settled on a "To Be That Self W~GbOne Truly Is" 165 touch more earthy goal--m enioy and release and satisfy every sensual desire. Stiff others--and this applies to many today--regard the purpose of life as being to achieve--to gain material possessions, status, knowledge, power. Somehave made it their goal to give themselves completely and devotedly m a cause outside of themselves such as Christianity, or Communism. A Hider has seen his goal as that of becomingthe leader of a master race which would exercise powerover alL In sharp contrast, manyan Oriental has striven to eliminate all personal desires, m exercise the utmost of control over himself. I mention these widely ranging choices to indicate someof the very different aims menhave lived for, to suggest that there are indeed manygoals pos~le. In a recent important study Charles Morris investigated objectively the pathways of life which were preferred by students in six different countries--india, China, Japan, the United States, Canada, and Norway(5). As one might expect, he found decided differences in goals between these national groups. He also endeavored, through a factor analysis of his data, to determine the underlying dimensions of value which seemedto operate in the thousands of specific individual preferences. Without going into the details of his analysis, we might look at the five dimensions which emerged, and which, combinedin various positive and negative ways, appeared to be responsible for the individual choices. The first such value dimension involves a preference for a responsible, moral, self-resmained participation in life, appreciating and conserving what manhas attained. The second places stress upon delight in vigamnsaction for the overcomingof obstacles. It involves a confident initiation of change, either in resolving personal and social pmbleras, or in overcoming obstacles in the natural world. The third dimensionstresses the value of a serf-sufficient inner life $,ith a rich and heightened self-awarene~ Control over persons and things is rejected in favor of a deep and sympathetic insight into self and others. The fourth underlying dimension values a receptivity m persons and to nature. Inspiration is seen as coming from a source outside 166 A Pm~aov~oF l:~x~o~m the self, and the person lives and develops in devoted responsiveness to this source. The fifth and final dimension stresses sensuous enjoyment, selfenjoyment. The simple pleasures of llfe, an abandonmentto the moment,a relaxed openness to life, are valued. This is a significant study, one of the first to measure objectively the answers given in different cultures to the question, what is the purpose of my life? It has added to our knowledgeof the answers given. It has also helped to define some of the basic dimensions in terms of which the choice is made. As Morris says, speaking of these dimensions, "it is as if persons in various cultures have in commonfive major tones in the musical scales on which they compose different melodies." (5, p. 185) A~V~:w I find myself, however, vaguely dissatisfied with this study. Noneof the "Waysto Live" which Morris put before the students as possible choices, and none of the factor dimensions, seems to nontam satisfactorily the goal of life which emerges in my experience with my elient~ As I watch person after person struggle in his therapy hours to find a way of life for himself, there seems to be a general pattern emerging, which is not quite captured by any of Morris’ descriptions. ..... The best way I can state this aim of life, as I see it coming to light in my rehtionship with myclients, is to use the words of SCren Kierkegaard -- "to be that self which one truly is." (3, p. 29) ] am quite aware that this maysound so simple as to be absurd. To be what one is seems like a statement of obvious fact rather than a goal. Whatdoes it mean?Whatdoes it imply? I want to devote the remainder of my remarks to those issues. I will simply say at the outset that it seems to meanand imply some strange things. Out of myexperience with myclients, and out of myownself-searching, I find myself arriving at views which would have been very foreign to me ten or fifteen years ago. So I trust you will look at these views with critical scepticism, and accept them only in so far as they ring true in your own experience. 4 UTo Be That Sel~ Wblcb One Truly Is" 167 DIRECTIONS TAKEN BYCLIENTS Let me see if I can draw out and clarify some of the trends and tendencies which I see as I work with clients. In myrelationship with these individuals my aim has been to provide a climate which contains as muchof safety, of warmth, of empathic understanding, as I can genuinely find in myself to give. I have not found it satisfying or helpful to intervene in the client’s experience with diagnostic or interpretative explanations, nor with suggestions and gnidanc~ Hencethe trends which I see appear to me to comefrom the client himself, rather than emanating from me.* AWAY FROM FAg~gs I observe first that characteristically the client shows a tendency to moveaway, hesitantly and fearfully, from a self that he is not. In other wordseven though there maybe no recognition of what he might be movingtoward, he is movingaway from something. And of course in so doing he is beginning to define, however negatively, what he is. At first this may be expressed simply as a fear of exposing what he is. Thus one eighteen-year-old boy says, in an early interview: ’¢I know I’m not so hot, and I’m afraid they’ll find it out. That’s why I do these things .... They’re going to find out some day that I’m not so hot. I’m just trying to put that day off as long as possible .... If you knowme as I knowmyself--. (Pause) I’m not going to tell you the person I really think I am. There’s only one place I won’t cooperate and that’s it.... It wouldn’t help your opinion of meto knowwhat I think of myself." It will be clear that the very expression of this fear is a part of becoming what he is. Instead of simply being a facade, as if it were himself, he is comingcloser to being himself, namelya frightened ¯ I cannot close my mind, however, to the possibility that be able to demonstrate that the trends 1 am about to describe subtle fashion, or to some degree, have been initiated by me. I them as occurring in the client in this safe relationship, because most likely ¢xp]anation. someonemight might in some am describing that seems the 168 A Paa.osoeweoP I~ person biding behind a h~ade because he regards himself as too awful to be seen. AWAy FROM "Ouol~rs" Another tendency of this sort seems evident in the client’s moving away from the compelling image of what he "ought to be." Someindividuals have absorbed so deeply from their parents the concept "I ought to be good," or "I have to be good," that it is only with the greatest of inward struggle that they find themselves movingawayfrom this goaL Thus one young woman,describing her unsatisfactory rehtiomhip with her father, tells first how much she wanted his love. "I think in all this feeling I’ve had about my father, that really I did very muchwant a good relationship with him .... I wanted so muchto have him care for me, and yet didn’t seemto get what I really wanted." She always felt she had to meet all of his demands and expectations and it was "just too much. Beeanse once I meet one there’s another and another and another, and I never really meet them. It’s sort of an endless demand." She feels she has been like her mother, submissive and compliant, trying continually to meet his demand~"And really not wanting to be that kind of person. I find it’s not a good way to be, but yet I think I’ve had a sort of belief that that’s the way you have to be if you intend to be thought a lot of and loved. Andyet whowould want to love somebodywho was that sort of wishy washy person?" The counselor responded, "Whoreally would love a door mat?" She went on, "At least I wouldn’t want to be loved by the kind of person who’d love a door mat!" Thus, though these words convey nothing of the self she might be moving toward, the weariness and disdain in both her voice and her statement makek clear that she is movingaway from a self which has to be good, which has to be submissive. Curiously enough a numberof individuals find that they have felt compelledto regard themselves as bad, and it is this concept of themselves that they find they are moving away from. One young man shows very clearly such a movement.He says: "I don’t know howI got this impression that being ashamedof myself was such an appropriate way m feeL... Being ashamed of me was the way n "To Be That Self Which OneTruly Is 169 I just bad to be .... There was a world where being ashamedof rayself was the best wayto feeL... If yon are somethingwhich is disapproved of very much, then I guess the only way you can have any kind of self-respect is to be ashamedof that part of you which isn’t approved oL... "But nowI’m adamantly refusing to do things from the old viewpoint. .. ¯ It’s as if I’m convinced that someone said, ’The way you wiU bare to be is to be ashamedof yunrseff--so be that way!’ And I accepted it for a long, long time, saying ’OK, that’s me!’ And now I’m standing up against that somebody,saying, ’I don’t care what you say. I’m not going to feel ashamedof myself!’" Obviously he is abandoning the concept of himself as shameful and had. AWAY FROM MEETING EXPECTATIONS Other clients find themselves movingaway from what the culture expects them to be. In our current industrial cxdture,, for example, as Whytehas forcefully pointed out in his recent book (7), there are enormouspressures to becomethe characteristics which are expected of the "organization man." Thus one should be fulty a member of the group, should subordinate his individuality to fit into the group needs, should become"the well-rounded man who can handle well-rounded men." In a newly completed study of student values in this country Jacob summarizeshis findings by saying, "The main overall effect of higher education upon student values is to bring about general acceptance of a body of standards and attitudes characteristic of coUegebredmenand womenin the Americancommunity.... The impact of the college experience is... to socialize the individua~ to refine, polish, or ’shape up’ his values so that he can fit comfortably into the ranks of Americancollege alumni." (1, p. 6) Over against these pressures for conformity, I find that when clients are free to be any way they wish, they tend to resent and to question the tendency of the organization, the college or the culture to mouldthem to any given form~ One of myclients says with considerable heat: "I’ve been so long trying to live according to what was meaningful to other people, and what madeno sense at a// to me, really. I somehowfelt so muchmore than that, at some leveL" 170 A l~n~oP~ oF P~soNs So he, like others, tends to move away from being what is expected. AWAy FROM ~INO OTB~ I find that many individuals have formed themselves by trying to please others, but again, whenthey are free, they moveaway from being this person. So one professional man, looking back at some of the process he has been through, writes, toward the end of therapy: "I finally felt that I Kmplybad to begin doing what 1 ¯ wanted to do, not what I thought I should do, and regardless of what other people feel I should do. This is a complete reversal of mywhole life. I’ve always felt I bad to do things because they were expected of me, or more important, to makepeople like me. The hell with it! I think from now on I’m going to just be me--rich or poor, good or had, rational or irrational, logical or illogical, famous or infamous. So thanks for your part in helping me to rediscover Shakespeare’s-- ’To thine own self be tro~’" So one maysay that in a somewhatnegative way, clients define their goal, their purpose, by discovering, in the freedom and safety of an understanding relationship, some of the directions they do not wish to move. They prefer not to hide themselves and their feelings from themselves, or even from some significant others. They do not wish to be what they "ought" to be, whether that imperative is set by parents, or by the culture, whether it is defined positively or negatively. They do not wish to mouldthemselves and their behaviur into a form which would be merely pleasing to others. They do not, in other words, choose to be anything which is artificial, anything which is imposed, anything which is defined from withoat They realize that they do not value such purposes or goals, even though they may have lived by them all their fives up to this poin~ TOWARD SELF-DIRECTION But what is involved positively in the experience of these cfients? I shall try to describe a number of the facets I see in the directions in which they move. First of all, the client moves toward being autonomous. By this I t UToBe That Self WbJcbOneTruly Is" 171 mean that gradually he chooses the goals toward which be wants m move. He becomesresponsible for himself. He decides what aaivities and ways of behaving have meaning for him, and what do not. I think this tendency toward self-diroction is amply ilius~red in the examples I have given. I would not want to give the impression that my clients move blithely or confidently in this direc~on. No indeed. Freedomto be oneself is a frighteningly responsible freedom, and an individual movestward it cautiously, feadufiy, and with almost no confidence at firs~ Nor would I want to give the impression that he always makes sound choices. To be responsibly self-directing means that one chooses--and then learns from the conseqnenc~So clients find this a sobering but exciting kind of experience. As one client says "I feel frightened, and vulnerable, and cot loose from support, but I also feel a sort of surging up or force or strength in me." This is a commonkind of reaction as the client takes over the self-direction of his ownlife and behavior. TOWARD BEING PROCE~ The second observation is difficult m make, because we do not have good words for it. Clients seem to movetoward more openly being a process, a fluidity, a changing. Theyare not disturbed to find that they are not the same from day to day, that they do not always hold the samefeelings toward a given experience or person, that they are not always consistent. They are in flux, and seem morecontent to continue in this flowing current. The striving for conclusions and end states seems m diminish~ One client says, "Things are sure changing, boy, whenI can’t even predict my own behavior in here anymore. It was something I was able to do before. NowI don’t knowwhat I’ll say next. Man, it’s quite a feeling .... I’m just surprised I even said these thin~.... I see something new every time. It’s an adventure, that’s what it is m into the unknow~... I’m beginning to enjoy this now, I’m joyful about it, even about all these old negative things." He is beginning to appreciate himself as a fluid process, at first in the therapy hour, but later he vail find this true in his life. I cannot help but be re- 172 A 1~uLosoPu-~oF ~IsoNs mindedof Kierkegaard’s description of the individual who really exists. "An existing individual is constantly in process nf becoming, ¯.. and transhtes all his thinking into terms of process. It is with (him)... as it is with a writer and his style; for he only has a style whonever has anything finished, bnt ’movesthe waters of the language’ every time lie begins, so that the most commonexpression comes into being for him with the freshness of a new birth." (2, p. 79) I find this catches excellently the direction in which clients move, toward being a process of potentialities being born, rather than being or becoming some fixed goaL Towered BEmQ COMPLZxrrY It also involves being a complexity of process. Perhaps an illustration will help here. One of our counselors, whohas himself been muchhelped by psychotherapy, recently cameto meto discuss his rehtionship with a very difficult and disturbed client. It interested me that he did not wish to discuss the client, except in the briefest terms. Mostly he wanted to be sure that he was dearly" aware of the complexity of his ownfeelings in the relationshiphis warmfeelings toward the client, his occasional frustration and annoyance, his sympathetic regard for the client’s welfare, a degree of fear that the client might becomepsychotic, his concern as to what others would think if the case did not turn out well. I realized that his overall attitude was that if he could be, quite openly and transparently, all of his complexand changing and sometimes contradictory feelings in the relationship, all would go well. If, however, he was nnly part of his feelings, and partly facade or defense, he was sure the relationship would not be good. I find that this desire tn be all of oneself in each moment--all the richness and complexity, with nothing hidden from oneseff, and nothing feared in oneself--this is a commondesire in those who have seemed to show muchmovementin therapy. I do not need to say" that this is a dit~cult, and in its absolute seine an impossible goal. Yet one of the most evident trends in clients is to movetoward becoming all of the complexity of one’s changing serf in each significant moment. "To Be Tba~ Self Which One Truly Is" 173 TOWARDOpr~czss To ExP~r~cz "To be that self which one truly is" involves still other cornponen~Onewhich has perhaps been implied already is that the individual moves toward living in an open, friendly, close relationship to his own experience. This does not occur easily. Often as the client senses some new facet of himself, he initially rejects it. Only as he experiences such a hitherto denied aspect of himself in an acceptant climate can he tentatively accept it as a part of himself. As one client says with some shock after experiencing the dependent, small boy aspect of himself, "That’s an emotion I’ve never felt dearly--one that I’ve never been!" He cannot tolerate the experience of his childish feelings. But gradually he comes to accept and embrace them as a part of himself, to live close to them and in them whenthey occur. Another young man, with a very serious stuttering problem, lets himself be open to some of his buried feelings toward the end of his therapy. He says, "Boy, it was a terrible fight. I never realized it. I guess it was too painfnl to reach that heigh~ I mean I’m iust beginning to feel it now. Oh, the terdb/e pain.... It was terrible to talk. I meanI wanted to talk and then I didn’t want to .... I’m feeling--I think I know-- it’s iust plain strain--terrible strain-stress, that’s the word, just so muchstress I’ve been feeling. I’m iust beginning to feel it now after all th~’,e years of it ... it’s terrible. I can hardly get my breath nowtoo, I’m just all choked up inside, all tigl~t inside .... I just feel like I’m crushed. (He begins to cry.) never realized that, I never knewthat-" (6) Here he is opening himself to internal feelings which are clearly not new to him, but which up to this time, he has never been able fully to experience. Nowthat he can permit himself to experience them, he will find them less terrible, and he will be able to live closer to his own experiencing. Gradually clients learn that experiencing is a friendly resource, not a frightening enemy. Thus I think of one client who, toward the close of therapy, whenpuzzled about an issue, would put his head in his hands and say, "Nowwhat/s it I’m feeling? I want to get next to it- I want to learn what it i~" Then he would wait, quletiy 174 A PmL~o~ oF P~so~ and patiently, until he could discern the exact flavor of the feelings oCcurring in him. Often I sense that the client is trying to listen to himself, is trying to hear the messages and meanings which are being COmmunicated by his ownphysiological reactions. Nolonger is he so fearful of what he mayfind. He comes to realize that his own inner reactions and experiences, the messages of his senses and his viscera, are friendly. He comes to want to be close to his inner sources of information rather than closing them off. Maslow, in his study of what he calls self-actualizing people, has noted this same characteristic. Speaking of these people, he says, "Their ease of penetration to reality, their closer approach to an animal-like or child-like acceptance and spontaneity imply a superior awareness of their own impulses, their own desires, opinions, and subjective reactions in generaL" (4, p. 210) This greater openness to what goes on within is assuciated with a similar openness to experiences of external reality. Maslowmight be speaking of clients I have knownwhenhe says, "self-actualized people have a wonderful capacity to appreciate again and again, freshly and naively, the basic goods of llfe with awe, pleasure, wonder, and even ecstasy, howeverstale these experiences maybe for other people." (4, p. 214) Tow~Acczrr~cz oF Om~s Closely related to this openness to inner and outer experience in general is an openness to and an acceptance of other individuals. As a client moves toward being able to accept his own experience, he also movestoward the acceptance of the experience of others. He values and appreciates both his own experience and that of others for what it is. To quote Maslowagain regarding his selfactualizing individuals: "One does not complain about water because it is wet, nor about rocks because they are hard .... As the child looks out upon the world with wide, uncritical and innocent eyes, simply noting and observing what is the case, without either arguing the matter or demandingthat it be otherwise, so does the selfactualizing person look upon humannature both in himself and in others." (4, p. 207) This acceptant attitude toward that which exists, I find developing in clients ia therapy. =ToBe That Self WI~ehOne.Tndy is" t75 Tow~m TRUST or SELF still another way of describing this pattern whichI see in each client is to say that increasingly he trusts and values the process which is himself. Watching my clients, I have comem a much better understanding of creative people. H Greco, for example, must have realized as he looked at some of his early work, that "good artists do not paint like that-" Bat somehowhe trusted his own experiencing of life, the process of himself, sufficiently that he could go on expressing his ownunique perceptions. It was as though he could say, "Goodartists do not paint like this, but I paint like this." Or to moveto another field, Ernest Hemingsvaywas surely aware that "good writers do not write like thi~" But fortunately he moved toward being Hemingway,being himself, rather than toward some one else’s conception of a good writer. Einstein seems to have been unusually oblivious to the fact that good physicists did not think his kind of thoughts. Rather than drawing back because of his inadequate academic preparation in physics, he simply movedtoward being Einstein, toward thinking his ownthoughts, toward being as truly and deeply himself as he could. This is not a phenomenon which occurs only in the artist or the geniu~ Tuneand again in my clients, I have seen simple people becomesignificant and creative in their own spheres, as they have developed more trust of the processes going on within themselves, and have dared to feel their own feelings, live by values which they discover within, and express themselves in their own unique way~ T~ G~,r~voa, DIP, ZCnoN Let me see if I can state more concisely what is involved in this pattern of movementwhich I see in clients, the elements of which I have been trying to describe. It seems to mean that the individual movestoward being, knowingly and acceptingly, the process which he inwardly and actually/s. He moves away from being what he is not, from being a facade. He is not trying to be more than he is, with the attendant feelings of insecurity or bombastic defensiveness. He is not trying to be less than he is, with the attendant feelings of guilt or self-depreciation. He is increasingly listening to the deep- 176 A Pan-eaoP1~ry oF l~mo~ ~: recesses of his physiological and emotional being, and finds hhnself increasingly willing to be, with greater accuracy and depth, that self which he most truly is. One client, as he begins to sense the .direction he is taking, asks himself wonderingly and with incredulity m one interview, "You mean if I’d really be what I feel like being, that that would be all righL~" His own further experience, and that of manyanother client, tends toward an affarmative answer. To be what he truly is, this is the path of life which he appears to value most highly, whenhe is free to movein any direction. It is not simply an intellectual value choice, but seems to be the best description of the groping, tentative, uncertain behaviors by which he moves exploringly toward what he wants to be. SOME MISAPPREH~SIONS To many people, the path of life I have been endeavoring to describe seems like a most unsatisfactory path indeed. To the degree that this involves a real difference in values, I simply respect it as a difference. But I have found that sometimes such an attitude is due to certain misapprehension~ In so far as I can I would like to dear these away. DoEs Ix IMPLY FIXI’I~.~ To some it appears that to be what one is, is to remain static They see such a purpose or value as synonymouswith being fixed or unchanging. Nothing could lie further from the truth. To be what one is, is to enter fully into being a process. Changeis facilitated, probably maximized, whenone is willing to be what he truly ig Indeed it is the person who is denying his feelings and his reactions who is the person who tends to comefor therapy. He has, often for years, been trying to change, but finds himself fixed in these behaviors which he dislikes. It is only as he can becomemore of himself, can be moreof what he has denied in himself, that there is any prospect of change. "To Be That Sell Which OneTruly Is" 177 DoES IT IMPLY BEING EVIL? An even more commonreaction to the path of life I have been describing is that to be what one truly is would meanto be bad, evil, uncontrolled, destructive. It would meanto unleash somekind of a monster on the world. This is a view which is very well knownto me, since I meet it in almost every client: "If I dare to let the feelings flow which are dammedup within me, if by some chance I should live in those feelings, then this would be catastrophe." This is the attitude, spoken or unspoken, of nearly every client as he moves into the experiencing of the unknownaspects of himself. But the whole course of his experience in therapy contradicts these fears. He finds that gradually he can be his anger, whenanger is his real reaction, but that such accepted or transparent anger is not destrncfive. He finds that he can be his fear, but that knowingly to be his fear does not dissolve him. He finds that he can be self-pitying, and it is not "bad." He can feel and be his sexual feelings, or his "lazy" feelings, or his hostile feelings, and the roof of the world does not fall in. The reason seems to be that the more he is able to permit these feelings to flow and to be in him, the more they take their appropriate place in a total harmonyof his feeling~ He discovers that he has other feelings with which these mingle and find a belmace. He feels loving and tender and considerate and cooperative, as well as hostile or lustful or angry. He feels interest and zest and curiosity, as well as laziness or apathy. He feels courageous and venturesome, as well as fearful. HIS feelings, when he lives closely mad acceptingly with their complexity, operate in a constructive harmony rather than sweeping him into some uncontrollably evil path. Sometimespeople express this concern by saying that if an individual were to be what he truly is, he would be releasing the bea~ in himself. I feel somewhatamused by this, became I think we might take a closer look at the beasts. The lion is often a symbol of the "ravening beast." But what about him? Unless he has been very muchwarped by contact with humans, he has a number of the qualities I have been describing. To be sure, he kills whenhe is hungry, but he does not go on a wild rampageof killing, nor does he overfeed himself. He keeps his handsomefigure better than some of us. He is he!pless and dependent in his puppyhood,but he moves from that to independence. He does not cling to dependence. He is selfish ar.zl self-centered in infancy, but in adulthood he shows a reasonable degree of cooperativeness, and feeds, cares for, and protects his young. He satisfies his sexual desires, but this does not meanthat he goes on wild and lustful orgies. His various tendencies and urges have a harmonywithin him. He is, in some basic sense, a constructive and trustworthy memberof the species felis leo. And what I am trying to suggest is that when one is truly and deeply a unique memberof the humanspecies, this is not something which should excite horror. It meansinstead that one lives fully and openly the complex process of being one of the most widely sensitive, responsive, and creative creatures on this planet. Fully to be one’s own uniqueness as a humanbeing, is not, in myexperience, a process which would be hbeled had. Moreappropriate words might he that it is a positive, or a constructive, or a realistic, or a trustworthy process. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS Let meturn for a momentto someof the social implications of the path of life I have attempted to describe. I have presented it as a direction which seems to have great meaning for individuals. Does it have, could it have, any meaning or significance for groups or or~nizadons? Wouldit be a direction which might usefully be chosen by a hbur union, a church group, an industrial corporation, a university, a nation? To me it seems that this might be possible. Let us take a look, for example, at the conduct of our own country in its foreign affairs. By and large we find, if we listen to the statements of our leaders during the past several years, and read their documents, that our diplomacy is always based upon high moral purposes; that it is always consistent with the policies we have followed previously; that it involves no selfish desires; and that it has never been mistaken in its judgments and choices. I think perhaps "To Be That Self WhichOne Truly Is" 179 you will agree with methat if we heard an individual speaking in these terms we would recognize at once that this must be a faqade, that such statements could not possibly represent the real process going on within himself. Supposewe speculate for a momentas m howwe, as a nation, might present ourselves in our foreign diplomacyif we were openly, knowingly, and acceptingly being what we truly are. I do not know precisely what we are, but I suspect that if we were trying to express ourselves as we are, then our communicationswith foreign countries would contain elements of this sort. Weas a nation are slowly realizing our enormous m’ength, and the power and responsibility which go with that strength. Weare moving, somewhatignorantly and clumsily, toward accepring a position of responsible world leadership. Wemakemanymistakes. Weare often inconsistent. Weare far from perfect. Weare deeply frightened by the stxengrh of Communism,a view of life different from our own. Wefeel extremely competitive toward Communian,and we are angry and humiliated whenthe Russians surpass us in any field. Wehave some very selfish foreign interests, such as in the oil in the Middle East. Onthe other hand, we have no desire to hold dominionover peoples. Wehave complex and contradictory feelings toward the freedom and independence and seif-determination of individuals and countries: we desire these and are proud of the past support we have given to such tendencies, and yet we are often frightened by what they maymean. Wetend to value and respect the dignity and worth of each individual yet whenwe are frightened, we moveawayfrom this direclion. Supposewe presented ourselves in somesuch fashion, openly and transparently, in our foreign relations. Wewould be attempting to be the nation which we truly are, in all our complexity and even contradictoriness. Whatwould be the results? To me the results would be similar to the experiences of a client when he is more truly 180 .~ PHILO6OPHy OF ~..,RSONIJ that which he is. Let us look at some of the probable outcomes. Wewould be muchmore comfortable, because we would have nothing to hide. Wecould focus on the problemat hand, rather than spending our energies to prove that we are moral or consisteuu Wecould use all of our creative imagination in solving the problem, rather than in defending ourselves. We could opeuly advance both our selfish interests, and our sympathetic concern for others, and let these conflicting desires find the balance which is acceptable to us as a people. Wecould freely change and grow in our leadership position, because we would not be bound by rigid concepts of what we have been, most be, ought m be. Wewould find that we were much less feared, because others would be less inclined to suspect what lies behind the facade. Wewould, by our own openness, tend to bring forth openness and realism on the part of others. Wewould tend to work out the solutions of world problems on the basis of the real issues involved, rather than in terms of the facades being worn by the negotiating parties. In short what 1 amsuggesfmg by this fantasied exampleis that nations and organizations might discover, as have individuals, that it is a richly rewarding experience to be what one deeply is. I arn suggesting that this view contains the seeds of a philosophical approach to all of life, that it is more than a trend observed in the experience of clients. SUMMARY I began this talk with the question each individual asks of himself --what is the goal, the purpose, of my life? I have tried to tell you what I have learned from myclients, who in the therapeutic rehtionship, with its freedomfrom threat and freedomof choice, exemplify in their lives a commonalityof direction and goal. I have pointed out that they tend to moveaway from self-cnnceal- "To Be That Self Wblcb One Truly If 181 merit, away from being the expectations of others. The characteristic movement,I have said, is for the client m permit himseff freely to be the changing, fluid, process which he is. He movesalso toward a friendly openness to what is going on within him-- learning to listen sensitively m himself. This means that he is increasingly a harmonyof complex sensings and reactions, rather than being the clarity and simplicity of rigidity. It means that as he moves toward acceptance of the "is-hess" of himself, he accepts others increasingly in the same listening, understanding way. He trasts and values the complex inner processes of himself, as they emerge toward expression. He is creatively realistic, and realistically creative. He finds that to be this process in himseff is to maximize the rate of change and growth in himseff. He is continually engaged in discovering that to be all of himseff in this fluid sense is nor synonymouswith being evil or uncontrolled. It is instead to feel a growing pride in being a sensitive, open, realistic, iuner-directed memberof the humanspecies, adapting with courage and imagination to the complexities of the changing situation. It meanstaking con6nual steps toward being, in awareness and in expression, that which is congruent with one’s total organismic reactiong To use Kierkcgaard’s more aesthetically satisfying terms, it means"to be that serf whichone truly is." I trust I have madeit evident that this is not an easy direction to move, nor one which is ever completed. It is a continuing way of life. In trying to explore the limits of such a concept, I have suggested that this direction is not a waywhich is necessarily limited to clients in therapy, nor to individuals seeking to find a purpose in life. It would seem to make the same kind of sense for a group, an organization, or a nation, and would seem m have the same kind of rewarding concomitants. I recognize quite clearly that this pathwayof life which I have outlined is a value choice which is decidedly at variance with the goals usually chosen or behaviorally followed. Yet because it springs from individuals whohave more than the usual freedom to choose, and because it seems to express a unified trend in these individuals, I offer it to you for your consideration- 182 A PmLOSOP:,,’Y OFPV.USO~ ]~-,FER.EI~’CES 1. Jacob, P. E. Changing Values in College. NewHaven: Hazen Foundation, 1956. 2. Kierkegaard, S. ConciudingUnscientific Posucri~. Princeton University Press, 1941. 3. Kierkegaerd, S. The Sickness Unto Death. Princeton University Press, 1941. 4. Maslow, A. H. Motivation and Personal/ty. Harper and Bros., 1954. S. Morris, C~ W. Varlets of HumanValue. Univers/ty of Chicago Press, 1956. 6. Seemen, Julius. The Case of Jim. Nashville, Tennessee: Educational Testing Bureau, 1957. 7. Whyte, W. H, Jr. The Organ/za~ion Man. Simonk Schuster, 1956. 9 A Therapist’s View of the Good Life: The Fully Functioning Person ~out 1952 or 1953 1 ~rote, one of myConcept "winterofescapes to ~oarrner climes, a paperduring I entitled "The the Fully Functioning Person." It "was an attempt to spell out the picture of the person ,who ,would emerge ff therapy ,were maximally successf"td. I ~vas some’whatfrightened by the [tuid, relativistic, individualisti~ person who seemed to be the logical outcome of the processes of therapy. I felt t~o questions. Was my logic correct? I T correct, "was this the sort of person I valued? To give myself opportunity to mull over these ideas, I bad the paper duplicated, and in the ensuing years have distributed hundreds of copies to interested inquirers. As 1 became more sure of the ideas it contained, I submitted it to one of the major psychological journals. The editor ~rote that be would publish it, but felt that it needed to be cart in a much more conventional psychological [ramework.He suggested manyfundamental changes. This mademe feel that it was probably not acceptable to psychologists in the form in which I bad ~rritten it, and I dropped the idea of publication. Since then it has continued to be a focus of interest for a ,wide diversity of people, and Dr. Hayakawahas ,unitten an article about the concept in the journal of the semanticists, ETC. Consequently this ~vas one o[ the papers which came~rrt to ray mind when I contemplated the present book. 183 184 A Pmu~pHy or Pmtsoss When1 re-read it howeverI found that in the intervening yeasts manyof its most central themes and ideas bad been absorbed, and perhaps better expressed, in other papers l have included. So, ~2ith some reluctance I bare again put it aside, and present here instead a paper on my view of the good life, a paper ~obicb was based upon "The Fully Functioning Person," and ~obicb expresses, l believe, the essential aspects of that paper in briefer and morereadable form. My only concession to the past is to give the chapter beading a subtitle. MYvtzws regarding meaningin of working the good lifepeople are largely based upon mythe experience with in the very close and intimate relationship which is called psychotherapy. These views thus have an empirical or experiential foundation, as contrasted perhaps with a scholarly or philosophical foundation. I have learned what the good life seams to be by observing and partieiparing in the struggle of disturbed and troubled people to achieve that life. I should makeit clear from the outset that this experience I have gained comes from the vantage point of a particular orientation to psychotherapy which has developed over the years. Quite possibly all psychotherapy is basically similar, but since I am less sure of that than I once was, I wish to make it clear that my therapeutic experience has been along the lines that seem to memost effective, the type of therapy termed "client-centered." Let me attempt to give a very brief description of what this therapy would be like if it were in every respect optimal, since I feel I have learned most about the good life from therapeutic experiences in which a great deal of movementoccurred. If the therapy were optimal, intensive as well as extensive, then it would meanthat the therapist has been able to enter into an intensely personal and subjective relationship with the client--relating not as a scientist to an obiect of study, not as a physician expectin~ to diagnose and .4 Therapist’s Vie~ of the GoodLife 185 cure, bat as a person to a person. It would mean that the therapist feels this client to be a person of unconditional stir-worth: of value no matter what his condition, his behavior, or his feelings. It would meanthat the therapist is genuine, hiding behind no defensive fagade, but meeting the cliant with the feelings which organically he is experiencing. It would meanthat the therapist is able to let himself go in understanding this client; that no inner barriers keep him from sensing what it feels like to be the client at each moment of the rehtionship; and that he can convey something of his empathic understanding to the clienu It means that the therapist has been comfortable in entering this relationship fully, without knowing cognitively where it will lead, satisfied with providing a climate which will permit the client the utmost freedom to becomehimself. For the client, this optimal therapy would meanan exploration of increasingly strange and unknownand dangerous feelings in himself, the exploration proving possible ordy because he is gradually realizing that he is accepted unconditionally. Thus he becomesacquainted with elements of his experience which have in the past been denied to awareness as too threatening, too damaging to the structure of the serf. He finds himself experiencing these feelings fully, completely, in the rehtiouship, so that for the momenthe is his fear, or his anger, or his tenderness, or his strength. And as he lives these widely varied feelings, in all their degrees of intensi .ty, he discovers that he has experienced himself, that he/s all these feelings. He finds his behavior changing in constructive fashion in accordance with his newly experienced self. He approaches the realization that he no longer needs to fear what experience may hold, bat can welcome it freely as a part of his changing and developing self. This is a thumbnail sketch of what client-centered therapy comes close to, whenit is at its optimum. I give it here simply as a brief picture of the context in which 1 have formed myviews of the good life. A N~ATrv’E OBSERVATION As I have tried to live understandingly in the experiences of my clicnts, I havc gradually come to one negative conclusion about the good life. It seems to me that the good life is not any ~ixcd state. 186 A ~Pax nP D.asoNs It is not, in myestimation, a state of virtue, or contentment, or nirvana, or happiness. It is not a condition in which the individual is adjusted, or fulfilled, or actualized. To use psychological terms, it is not a state of drive-reduction, or tension-reduction, or homeostasis. I believe that all of these terms have been used in ways which imply that if one or several of these states is achieved, then the goal of life has been achieved. Certainly, for many people happiness, or adjusm~ent, are seen as states of being which are synonymouswith the good life. Andsocial scientists have frequently spoken of the reduction of tension, or the achievement of homeostasis or eqnilibrinm as if these states constituted the goal of the process of living. So it is with a certain amountof surprise and concern that I realize that my experience supports none of these definitions. If I focus on the experience of those individuals who seem to have evidenced the greatest degree of movementduring the therapeutic rehtiomhip, and who, in the years following this relationship, appear to have made and to be making real progress toward the good life, then it seems to me that they are not adequately described at all by any of these terms which refer to fixed states of being. I believe they would consider themselves insulted if they were described as "adjusted," and they would regard it as false if they were described as "happy" or "contented," or even "a~d." As I have known them I would regard it as most inaccurate to say that all their drive tensions have been reduced, or that they are in a state of homeostasis. So I am forced to ask myself whether there is any way in which I can generalize about their situation, any definition which I can give of the good life which would seemto fit the facts as I hav¢ observed them. I find this not at all easy, and what follows is stated very tentatively. A POSITIVEOBSERVATION If I attempt to capture in a few words what seems to meto be true of these people, I believe it will comeout something like this: The good life is a process, not a state of being. It is a direction, not a destination. The direction which constitutes the good life is that which is ,4 Tberapi~~s View of the Good Life 187 selected by the total organism, whenthere is psychological freedom to movein a~y directiom This organismically selected direction seems to have certain discemible general qualities which appear to be the sane in a wide variety of unique individuals. So I can integrate these statements into a definition which can at least serve as a basis for consideration and discussion. The good life, from the point of view of myexperience, is the process of movement in a direction which the humanorganism selects whenit is inwardly free to move in any direction, and the general qualities of this selected direction appear to have a certain universality. Tn~ CH~.ACrF~CS or THEPROCZS8 Let me now try m specify what appear to be the characteristic qualities of this process of movement,as they crop up in person after person in therapy. As Iscsr~srso OPENNESS TOF.~F~¢~¢ In the first phce, the process seems to involve an increasing openness to experience. This phrase has cometo have more and more meaningfor me. It is the polar opposite of defensiveness. Defensiveness I have described in the past as being the organism’s reaponse to experiences which are perceived or anticipated as threatening, as incongruent with the individual’s ~sdng picture of himself, or of himself in rehdonship to the world. These threatening experiences are temporarily rendered hannle~ by being distorted in awareness, or being denied to awarenesg I quite literally cannot see, with accuracy, those experiences, feelings, reactions in myself which are significantly at variance with the picture of myself which I already possess. A large part of the process of therapy is the continuing discovery by the client that he is experiencing feelings and attitudes which heretofore he has not been able to be aware of, which he has not been able to "own" as being a part of himself. If a person could be fully open to his experience, however, every stimulus--whether originating within the orgauian or in the en- 188 A I:~a,,(x~wr oi P~tsoN8 vironment -- would be freely relayed through the nervous system without being distorted by any defensive mechanism. There would be no need of the mechanismof "subceptlon" wherebythe orga~ is forewarned of any experience threatening to the self. On the contrary, whether the stimulus was the impact of a configuration of form, color, or sound in the environment on the sensory nerves, or a memorytrace from the past, or a visceral sensation of fear or pleasure or disgust, the person would be "living" it, would have it completely available to awareness. Thus, one aspect of this process which I am nmulng "the good life" appears to be a movementawayfrom the pole of defensiveness toward the pole of openness to experience. The individual is becoming more able to listen to himself, to experience what is going on within himself. He is more open to his feelings of fear and discouragementand pain. He is also moreopen to his feelings of courage, and tenderness, and awe. He is free to live his feelings subiectively, as they exist in him, and also free to be aware of these feelings. He is more able fully to live the experiences of his organism rather than shutting them out of awarenes~ I~o~ms~.Y ~ L~o A second characteristic of the process which for me is the good life, is that it involves an increasing tendency to live fully in each moment.This is a thought which can easily be misunderstood, and which is perhaps somewhatvague in my own thinking. Let me to explain what I mean. I believe it wouldbe evident that for the person whowas fully open to his new experience, completely without defensiveness, each momentwould be new. The complexconfiguration of inner and outer stimuli which exists in this momenthas never existed before in iust this fashion. Consequently such a person would realize that "WhatI will be in the next moment,and what I will do, grows out of that moment, and cannot be predicted in advance either by me or by others." Not infrequently we find clients expressing exactly this sort of feeling. One way of expressing the fluidity which is present in such existential living is to say that the self and personality emerge from ,4 Therapist’s View of the GoodLife 189 experience, rather than experience being transhted or twisted to fit preconceived self-structure. It means that one becomes a participant in and an observer of the ongoing process of organismic experience, rather than being in control of i~ Such living in the momentmeansan absence of rigidity, of tight organization, of the imposition of structure on experience. It means instead a maximum of adaptability, a discovery of structure /n experience, a flowing, changing organization of self and personality. It is this tendency toward existential living which appears to me very evident in people whoare involved in the process of the good life. One might almost say that it is the most essential quality of i~ It involves discovering the smlcture of experience in the process of living the experience. Mostof us, on the other hand, bring a preformed structure and evaluation to our experience and never relinquish it, but cram and twist the experience to fit our preconceptions, annoyedat the fluid qualities which makeit so unruly in fitting our carefully constructed pigeonholes. To open one’s spirit to what is going on now, and to discover in that present process whatever structure it appears to have-- this to meis one of the qualiries of the good life, the mature life, as I see clients approach i~ As IscRr~srsQ Tausr m His O~co~x~sM Still another characteristic of the person whois living the process of the good life appears to be an increasing trust in his organism as a means of arriving at the most satisfying behavior in each existential situation. Again let me try to explain what I mean. In choosing what course of action to take in any situation, many people rely upon guiding principles, upon a code of action laid down by some group or institution, upon the judgment of others (from wife and friends to EmilyPost), or upon the way they have behaved in some similar past situation. Yet as I observe the clients whoseexperiences in living have taught me so much, I find that increasingly such individuals are able to trust their total organismic reaction to a new situation because they discover to an ever-increasing degree that if they are open to their experience, doing what "feels right" proves to be a competent and trustworthy guide to behavior which is truly satisfying. 190 A P~I~sop~OFPriSONS As I try to understand the reason for this, I find myself fo]lowlng line of thought. The person who is fully open to his experience would have access to all of the awilable data in the fituation, on which to base his behavior; the social demands,his owncomplexand possibly conflicting needs, his memoriesof similar situations, his perception of the uniqueness of this situation, etc., etc. The data would be very complex indeed. But he could permit his total organism, his consciousness participating, to consider each stimulus, need, and demand, its relative intensity and importance, and out of this complex weighing and balancing, discover that course of action which would comeclosest to satisfying all his needs in the situation. An analogy which might come close to a description would he to comparethis person to a giant electronic computingmachine. Since he is open to his experience, all of the data from his sense impressions, from his memory,from previous learning, from his visceral and internal states, is fed into the machine. The machine takes all of these multitudinous pulls and forces which are fed in as data, and quickly computes the course of action which would be the most economical vector of need satisfaction in this existential situation. This is the behavior of our hypothetical person. The defects which in most of us make this process untrustworthy" are the inclusion of information which does not belong to this present situation, or the exclusion of information which does. It: is when memories and previous learnings are fed into the computations as if they were this reality, and not memories and learnings, that erroneous behavioral answers arise. Or when certain threatening experiences are inhibited from awareness, and hence are withheld from the computation or fed into it in distorted form, this too produces error. But our hypothetical person would find his organism thoroughiy trustworthy, because all of the avaihble data would be used, and it would be present in accurate rather than distorted form. Hence his behavior would comeas close as possible to satisfying aH his needs--for enhancement, for affiliation with others, and the like. In this weighing, hahncing, and computation, his organism would not by any means be infallible. It would always give the best possible any~ver for the avalhble data, but sometimesdata would be A Tberap~t’s View of the Good Life 19! missing. Because of the element of openn~s to experience, however, any errors, anY following of behavior which was not sallying, would he quickly corrected. The computations, as it were, would always be in procesS of being corrected, because they would be con~ually checked in behavior. Perhaps you will not like my am]ogy of an e|ec~ouic computing machine. Let me return to the clients I know. As they becomemore open to all of their experiences, they find it increasingly possible to trust their reactions. If they "feel like" expressing anger they do so and find that this comes out satisfactorily, because they are equally alive to all of their other desires for affection, affdiation, and rehtionship. They are surprised at their own intuidve skill in finding behavioral solutions to complexand troubling humanrelationships. It is only afterward that they realize howsurprisingly trustworthy their inner reactions have been in bringing about satisfactory be~ haviur. THEPROCESS OFFtmcnosI~OMORZ FULLY I should like to draw together these three threads describing the process of the good life into a more coherent picture. It appears that the person whois psychologically free movesin the direction of becominga morefully functioning person. He is more able to five fully in and with each and all of his feelings and reactions. He makes increasing use of all his organic equipment to sense, as accurately as possible, the existential situation within and without. He makes use of all of the information his nervous system can thus supply, using it in awareness, but recognizing that his total organism may be, and often is, wiser than his awareness. He is more able to permit his total organism to function freely in all its complexity in selecting, from the multitude of possibilities, that behavior which in this moment of time will be most generally and genuinely satisfying. He is able to put more trust in his organism in this functioning, not because it is infallible, but because he can he fully open to the consequences of each of his actions and correct them if they prove to be less than satisfying. He is more able to experience all of his feelings, and is less afraid of any of his feelings; he is his own sifter of evidence, and is more 192 A 1’aazsopn,r 07 Pgaso~ open to evidence from all sources; he is completely engaged in the process of being and becoming himself, and thus discovers that he is soundly and reelisticaJly social; he fives more completely in this moment,but learns that this is the soundest living for all time. He is becoming a more fully functioning organism, and because of the awareness of himself which flows freely in and through his experience, he is becominga more fully functioning person. SOME I~LtCATIONS Any view of what constitutes the good life carries with k many implications, and the view I have presented is no exception. I hope that these implications maybe food for thought. There are tnaro or three of these about which I would like to cununent. A NEwPEUSPEC~vE ON"FREEDOM VSDgaXRMINISM The first of these implications maynot immediately be evident. It has to do with the aga-old issue of "free will." Let me endeavor to spell out the way in which this issue now appears to me in a new light. For some time I have been perplexed over the living paradox which exists in psychotherapy between freedom and determinism. In the therapeutic rchtionship some of the most compelling subjective experiences are those in which the client feels within himself the power of naked choice. He is free-- to become himself or to hide behind a facade; to moveforward or to retrogress; to behave in ways which are destructive of self and others, or in ways which are enhancing; quite literally free to live or die, in both the physiological and psychological meaning of those terms. Yet as we enter this field of psychotherapy with objective research methods, we are, like any other scientist, committed to a complete determinism. Fromthis point of view every thought, feeling, and action of the client is determined by what preceded it There can be no such thing as freedom. The dilemma I am trying to describe is no different than that found in other fields--it is simply brought to sharper focus, and appears moreinsoluble. A Tl~rapist’s View of the GoodLife 193 This dilemmacan be seen in a fresh perspective, however, when we consider it in terms of the definition I have Ovenof the fully funcfioulng person. Wecould say that in the optimumof therapy the person rightfully experiences the most complete and absolute freedom. He wills or chooses to follow the course of action which is the most economical vector in rehtionship to all the internal and external stimuli, because it is that behavior which will be most deeply satisfying. But this is the same course of action which from another vantage point may be said to be determined by all the factors in the existential situation. Let us contrast this with the picture of the person whois defensively organized. He wills or chooses to follow a given course of action, but finds that he cannot behave in the fashion that he chooses. He is determined by the factors in the existential situation, but these factors include his defensiveness, his denial or distortion of some of the relevant dat~ Henceit is eerrain that his behavior will be less than fully satisfying. His behavior is determined, but he is not free to makean effective choice. The fully functioning person, on the other hand, not only experiences, but utilizes, the most absolute freedom when he spontaneously, freely, and vohintarily chooses and wills that which is also absolutely determined. I am not so naive as to suppose that this fully resolves the issue between subiective and obiective, between freedom and necessity. Nevertheless it has meaning for me that the more the person is living the good life, the more he will experience a freedom of choice, and the more his choices will be effectively implemented in his behavior. CREAT~TI’Y ASaN ELgMENT OFTHEGOOD Lz~ I believe it will be clear that a person who is involved in the directionai process which I have termed "the good life" is a creative person. With his sensitive openness to his world, his trust of his own ability to form new relationships with his environment, he would be the type of person from whomcreative products and creative living emerge. He would not necessarily be "adjusted" to his culture, and he would almost certainly not be a conformist. But at any time and in any culture he would live constructively, in as much harmony 19 A MosoPHY oF PzisoNs with his culture as a balanced satisfaction of needs demanded.In Somecultural situations he might in some waysbe very unhappy, but he would continue to movetoward becominghimself, and to behave in such a way as to provide the maximum satisfaction of his deepest needs. Such a person would, I believe, be recognized by the student of evolution as the type most likely to adapt and survive under changing environmental conditions. He would be able creatively to make Soundadjustments to new as well as old conditions. He would be a fit vanguard of humanevolution. BASIC TRUSTWORI~INESS OF HUMAN NATURE It will be evident that another implication of the view I have been presenting is that the basic nature of the humanbeing, whenfunctioning freely, is constructive and trustworthy. For me this is an inescapable conclusion from a quarter-century of experience in psychotherapy. "vVhenwe are able to free the individual from defensiveness, so that he is open to the wide range of his own needs, as well as the wide range of environmental and social demands,his reactions may be trusted to be positive, forward-moving, construcfive. Wedo not need to ask who will socialize him, for one of his own deepest needs is for affiliation and communicationwith others. As he becomesmore fully himself, he will becomemore realistically" socialized. Wedo not need to ask whowill control his aggressive impulses; for as he becomesmoreopen to all of his impulses, his need to be liked by others and his tendency to give affection will be as strong as his impulses to strike out or to seize for himself. He will be aggressive in situations in which aggression is realistically appropriate, but there will be no runaway need for aggression. His total behavior, in these and other areas, as he moves toward being open to all his experience, will be more balanced and realistic, behavior which is appropriate to the survival and enhancementof a highly social animal. I have little sympathy with the rather prevalent concept that man is basically irrational, and that his impulses, if not controlled, will lead to destruction of others and self. Man’sbehavior is exquisitely rational, moving with subde and ordered complexity toward the 195 d Tloer~t’s View of the Good Life goals his organism is endeavoring to achieve. The tragedy for most of us is that our defenses keep us from being aware of this rationality, so that consciously we are movingin one direction, while organismicaUywe are moving in another. But in our person who is living the process of the good life, there would be a decreasing numberof such barriers, and he would be increasingly a participant in the rationality of his organism. The only control of impulses which wouldexist, or which would prove necessary, is the natural and internal balancing of one need against another, and the discovery of behaviors which foUowthe vector most closely approximating the satisfaction of all needs. The experience of extreme satisfaction of one need (for aggression, or sex, etc.) in such a wayas to do violence to the satisfaction of other needs (for companionship, tender rehtionship, etc.) an experience very commonin the defensively organized person-wouldbe greatly decreased. He wouldparticipate in the vastly complex self-regulatory activities of his organism-- the psychological as well as physiological thermostatic controls--in such a fashion as to live in increasing harmony with himself and with others. T~EGr.v~xzRRxcas~s or Ling Onelast implication I should like to mention is that this process of living in the good life involves a wider range, a greater richness, than the constricted living in which most of us find ourselves. To be a part of this process means that one is involved in the frequently frightening and frequently satisfying experience of a more sensitive living, with greater range, greater variety, greater richness. It seems to me that clients who have movedsignificantly in therapy live more intimately with their feelings of pain, but also more vividly with their feelings of ecstasy; that anger is more clearly felt, but so also is love; that fear is an experience they know more deeply, but so is courage. Andthe reason they can thus live fully in a wider range is that they have this underlying confidence in themselves as trustworthy instruments for encountering life. I believe it will have becomeevident why, for me, adjectives such as happy, contented, blissful, enjoyable, do not seemquite appropriate to any general description of this process I have called the good life, even though the person in this process would experience 196 A PHn~oP~ry o~ l~so~s each one of these feelings at appropriate fime~ But the adjectives which seem more generally titting are adjectives such as enriching, exciting, rewarding, challenging, meaningful. This process of the good life is not, I amconvinced, a life for the faint-hearted. It involves the stretching and growing of becoming more and more of one’s potentialifie~ It involves the courage to be. It means hunching oneself fully into the stream of life. Yet the deeply exciting thing about humanbeings is that when the individual is inwardly free, he chooses as the good life this process of becoming. PART V Getting at the Facts: The Place of Research in Psychotherapy I have endeavored to check my clinical experience with reality, but not ~oitbout some philosophical puzzlement as to ~vhicb "reality" is most valid. 10 Persons or Science? A Philosophical Question This paper stands out for me as one which I found very satisfying to ~writc, and which has continued to be a satisfying expression of my views, l believe that one of the reasons I have liked it is that it eras ~ritten solely for myself. I had no thought of publishing it or using it for any purpose other than to clarify a grooving puzzlement and conflict ,within myself. As I look back on it I can recognize the origin of the conflict. It was between the logical positivism in which l was educated, for ~which I had a deep respect, and the subjectively oriented existential thinking which was taking root in me because it seemed to fit so well ,with my therapeutic experience. I am not a student of existential philosophy. 1 first becameacquainted v:ith the work of SCren Kierkegaard and that of Martin Buber at the insistence of some of the theological students at Chicago .who were taking work with me. They were sure that I would find the thinking of these men congenial, and in this they were largely correct. While there is muchin Kierkegaard, for example, to which I respond not at all, there are, every now and then, deep insights and convictions which beautifully express views l have held but never been able to formulate. ThoughKierkegaardlive’d one hundred years ago, I cannot help but regard him as a sensitive and highly per199 200 Rmr.~cam PsYcHormtm~,r ceptive friend. 1 think this paper shows my indebtedness to mos~:ly in the fact that reading his ~ork loosened me up and made me more v:illing to trus~ and express my own experience. Another helpful element in writing the paper v:as that I ~vas fat away from colleagues, ,wintering in Taxco, v:hen I wrote the majoT portion of it. A year later, on the Caribbeanisland of Grenada, 1 completed the paper by ~riting the final section. As owith several of the other papers in this volume, I load it duplicated (or reading by my colleagues and students. After several years, at the suggestion of others, 1 submitted it for tmblication and it ivaJ accepted, rather to my surprise, by the American Psychologist. I have included it here because it seems to express, better than anything else I have v:ritten, the context in ~hich I see research, and makes clear the reason for my "double life" of subjectivity and objectiirity. I= INTRODUCTION THZS IS A primarilypuzzling’. for myserf, tomGnLy clarify PZRSO~ an issue~cvM~rr, which haswritten becomeincreasingly It will be of interest to others only to the extent that the issue exists for them. I shall therefore describe in this introduction, something of the way in which the paper grew. As I have acquired experience as a therapist, carrying on the exciting, rewarding experience of psychotherapy, and as I have worked as a scientific investigator to ferret out someof the truth about therapy, I have becomeincreasingly conscious of the gap between these two roles. The better therapist I have become(as I believe I have) -"2 the more I have been vaguely aware of mycomplete subjectivity 1 whenI amat mybest in this function. Andas I have becomea T: better investigator, more"hard-headed" and morescientific (as ~:r [ believe I have) I have felt an increasing discomfort at the distance ~i be~-een the rigorous objectivity of myself as scientist and the almost mystical subjectivity of myself as therapist. This paper is the !i result. "~ persons or Science? 201 WhatI did first was to let myself go as therapist, and describe, as well as I could do in a brief space, what is the essential nature of psychotherapy as I have lived it with manyclients. I would stress the fact that this is a very fluid and personal formulation, and that if it were written by another person, or it were written by me two years ago, or two years hence, it would be different in some respects. Then I let myseff go as sdenfist--as tough-minded fact-finder in this psychological realm, and endeavored to picture the meaning which science can give to therapy. Following this I carried on the debate which existed in me, raising the questions which each point of view legitimately asks the other. WhenI had carried my efforts this far I found that I had only" sharpened the conflict. The two points of view seemed more than ever irreconcilable. I discussed the material with a seminar of faculty and students, and found their commentsvery helpful. During the following year I continued to mull over the problem until I began ¯ to feel an integration of the two views arising in me. Morethan a year after the first sections were written I tried to express this tentative and perhaps temporary integration in words. Thus the reader whocares to follow my struggles in this matter will find that it has quite unconsciously assumed a dramatic form -all of the dramatis personae being contained within myself; First Protagonist, Second Protagonist, The Conflict, and finally, The Resolution. Without more ado let me introduce the first protagonist, myself as therapist, portraying as well as I can, what the experience of therapy seems to be. THE ESSENCE OF THERAPY IN TERMS OF ITS EXPERIENCE I launch myself into the relationship having a hypothesis, or a faith, that my ]Lldng, my confidence, and my understanding of the other person’s inner world, will lead to a significant process of becoming. I enter the relationship not as a scientist, not as a physician whocan accurately diagnose and cure, but as a person, entering into a personal relationship. Insofar as I see him only as an object, the client will tend to becomeonly an object. I risk myself, because if, as the relationship deepens, what develops 202 : R~s~cl-I IN PSYCH~ is a failure, a regre~on, a repudiation of me and the rehfiomhJp by" the client, then I sense that I vail lose m~+elf, or a part of myseff. At times this risk is very real, and is very keenly experienced. I let myself go into the immediacy of the relationship where it is my total organism which takes over and is sensitive to the relarionship, not simply my conscioumess. I am not consciously responding in a planful or analytic way, but simply react in an un~eflective way" to the other individual, my reaction being based, (but not conscionsly) on mytotal organismic sensitivity to this other person. I live the relationship on this basis. The essence of some of the deepest parts of therapy seems to bc a unity of experiencing. The client is freely able to experience his feeling in its complete intensity, as a "pure culture," without intellectual inhibitions or cautions, without having it bounded by knowl+f" edge of contradictory feelings; and I am able with equal freedom to experience myunderstanding of this feeling, without any consciousthought about it, without any apprehension or concern as to where this will lead, without any type of diagnostic or analytic thinking, "-g without any cognitive or emotional barriers to a complete "letting go" in understanding. Whenthere is this complete unity, singleness, fullness of experiencing in the relationship, then it acquires the "outof-this-world" quality which manytherapists have remarked upon, a sort of trance-like feeling in the relationship from which both the client and I emerge at the end of the hour, as if from a deep well or tunnel. In these momentsthere is, to borrow Buber’s phrase, a real "I-Thou" relationship, a timeless living in the experience which is between the client and me. It is at the opposite pole from seeing the client, or myself, as an obiect- It is the height of personal subiectivity. 1 am often aware of the fact that I do not know, cognitively, where this immediate rehtionship is leading. It is as though both I and the client, often fearfully, let ourselves slip into the stream of becoming, a stream or process which carries us along. It is the fact that the therapist has let himself float in this stream of experience or life previously, and found it rewarding, that makeshim each time less fearful of taking the plunge. It is my confidence that makesit easier for the client to embarkalso, a little bit at a time. It often seems persons or Science? 203 as though this stream of experiencing leads to ~une goaL Probably the u-oer statement however, is that its rewarding character lies /within the process itself, and that its major reward is that it enables y both the client and me, later, independently, m let ourselves go in ~the process of becoming. As to the client, as therapy proceeds, he finds that he is daring to becomehimself, in spite of all the dread consequences which he is sure will befall him if he permits himself to becomehimself. What does this becomingone’s self mean?It appears to meanless fear of the organismic, non-reflective reactions which one has, a gradual growth of trust in and even affection for the complex, varied, rich assortment of feelings and tendencies which exist in one at the organic or organismic leveL Consciousness, instead of being the watchmanover a dangerous and unpredictable lot of impulses, of which few can be permitted to see the light of day, becomes the comfortable inhabitant of a richly varied society of impulses and feelings and thoughts, which prove to be very satisfactorily selfo governing whennot fearfully or anthoritativdy guarded. ~’~" Involved in this process of becoming himself is a profound experi-~ence of personal choice. He realizes that he can choose to continue to hide behind a facade, or that he can take the risks involved in being himself; that he is a free agent who has it within his power to destroy another, or himself, and also the power to enhance himself and others. Faced with this naked reality of decision, he chooses to move in the direction of being himself. But being himself doesn’t "solve problems." It simply opens up a new way of living in which there is more depth and more height in the experience of his feelings; more breadth and more range. He feels more unique and hence more alone, but he is so much more real that his relationships with others lose their artificial quality, become deeper, more satisfying, and draw more of the realness of the other person into the relationship. Another way of looking at this process, this relationship, is that it is a learning by the client (and by the therapist, to a lesser extent). But it is a strange type of learning, Almost never is the learning notable by its complexity, and at its deepest the learnings never seem to fit well into verbal symbols. Often the learnings take such simple 204. R,v..s~utcn m" PS+ycH~+ forms as "I amdifferent from others"; "I do feel hatred for him"; "I am fearful of feeling dependent"; "I do feel sorry for myself"; "I amself-centered"; "I do have tender and loving feelings"; "I could be what I want to be"; etc. But in spite of their seeming simplicity" these learnings are vastly significant in some new way which is very" difficult to define. Wecan think of it in various ways. They arc self-appropriated learnings, for one thing, based somehowin experience, not in symbols. They are analogous to the learning of the child who knows that "two and two makefour" and who one day playing" with two objects and two objects, suddenly realizes in experience a totally new learning, that "two and two do makefour." Another mannerof understanding these learnings is that they are a belated attempt to match symbols with meanings in the world of feelings, an undertaking long since achieved in the cognitive realm. Intellectually, we match carefully the symbol we select with the meaningwhich an experience has for us. Thus I say something hap-pened "gradually," having quickly (and largely unconsciously) reviewed such terms as "slowly," "imperceptibly," "step-by-step," etc., and rejected them as not carrying the precise shade of meaning of the experience. But in the realm of feelings, we have never learned to attach symbols to experience with any accuracy of meaning. This something which I feel welling up in myself, in the safety of an acceptant relationship- what is it? Is it sadness, is it anger, is it: regret, is it sorrow for myself, is it anger at lost opportunities -- I stumble around trying out a wide range of symbols, until one "fits,’" "feels right," seems really to match the organismic experience. In doing this type of thing the client discovers that he has to learn tho language of feeling and emotion as if he were an infant learning to speak; often even worse, he finds he must unlearn a false lnnguag¢ before learning the true one. Let us try sdn one mote way of defining this type of learning, this time by describing what it is nor. It is a type of learning which cannot be taught. The essence of it is the aspect of self-discovery. With "knowledge" as we are accustomed to think of it, one person can teach it to another, providing each has adequate motivation and ability. But in the signil~canr learning which takes place in therapy’, one person cannot teach another. The teaching would destroy rahc persons or Science? 205 learning. Thus I might teach a client that it is safe for him to be himself, that freely to realize his feelings is not dangerous, etc. The more he learned th~ the less he would have learned it in the signlficanr~ experiential self-appropriating way. Kierkega~d regards this latter type of learning as true subjectivity, and makes the valid point that there can be no direct communicationof it, or even about it. The most that one person can do to further it in another, is to create certain conditions which make this type of learning possible. It cannot he compelled. A final way of trying to describe this learning is that the client gradually learns to symbolize a total and unified state, in which the state of the organism, in experience, feeling, and cognition may all be described in one unified way. To makethe matter even more vague and unsatisfactory, it seemsquite unnecessary that this symbolization should be expressed. It usually does occur, because the client wishes to communicateat least a portion of himself to the therapist, but it is probably not essentiaL The only necessary aspect is the inward realization of the total, unified, immediate, "at-this-instant," state of the organism which is me. For example, to realize fully that at this momentthe oneness in me is simply that "I am deeply frightened at the possibility of becomingsomething different" is of the essence of therapy. The client whorealizes this will be quite certain to recognize and realize this state of his being when it recurs in somewhatsimilar form. He will also, in all probability, recognize and realize more fully some of the other existential fedings which occur in him. Thus he will be movingtoward a state in which he is more truly himself. He ~ be, in more unified fashion, what he 9rga~cally/s, and this" seemsto be ~e essence of therapy. -. THEESSENCE OFTI~gR~Y11 TEP.MS OFSCIF~Cg I shall now let the second protagonist, myself as scientist, take over and give his view of this same field. In approaching the complexphenomenaof therapy with the logic and methods of science, the aim is to work toward an understanding of the phenomena.In science this meansan objective knowledgeof 206 ~.~.a~c~ m Psv~ events and of functional rehtionships between events. Science may also give the possibility of increased prediction of and control over these events, but this is not a necessary outcome of scientific endeavor. If the scientific aim were funly achieved in this realm, we woundpresumablyknowthat, in therapy, certain elements were associated with certain types of outcomes. Knowingthis it is likely that we would be able to predict that a particular instance of a therapeutic relatioush/p would have a certain outcome(within certain probability limits) because it involved certain elements. We could then very likely control outcomes of therapy by our maunpulao tion of the elements contained in the therapeutic relationship. It should be clear that no matter howprofound our scientific investigation, we could never by means of it discover any absolute truth, but could only describe relationships which had an increasingly high probability of occurrence. Nor could we ever discover any underlying reality in regard to persons, relationships or the universe. Wecould only describe rehtionships between observable event~ If science in this field followed the course of science in other fields, the working models of reality which would emerge (in the course of theory building) would be increasingly removedfrom the reality perceived by the senses. The scientific description of therapy and therapeutic relationships would becomeincreasingly unlike these phenomenaas they are experienced. It is evident at the outset that since therapy is a complex phenomenon, meaanrementwill be difficult. Nevertheless "anything that exists can be measured," and since therapy is judged to be a significant relationship, with implications extending far beyond itself, the difficulties mayprove to be worth surmounting in order to disco~rer hws of personality and interpersonal relationships. Since, in client-centered therapy, there already exists a crude theory (though not a theory in the strictly seienthSc sense) have a starting point for the selection of hypotheses. For purposes of this discussion, let us take some of the crude hypotheses which can be drawn from this theory, and see what a scientific approach will do with them. Wewill, for the time being, omit the translation of the total theory into a formal logic which wouldbe acceptable and consider only a few of the hypotheses. persons or SGience? 207 Let us first state three of these in their crude form. 1. Acceptance of the client by the therapist leads to an increased ncceptance of serf by the client. 2. The more the therapist perceives the client as a person rather than as an object, the more the client will come to perceive himself as a person rather than an obiect3. In the course of therapy an experiential and effective type of learning about serf takes place in the client. Howwould we go about transhting each of these s into operafional terms and how would we test the hypotheses? Whatwould be the general outcomes of such testing? This paper is not the phce for a detailed answer to these questions, but research already carried on supplies the answers in a general way. In the case of the first hypothesis, certain devices for measuring acceptance would be selected or devised. These might be attitude tests, obiective or projective, Q technique or the like. Presumably the same instruments, with slightly different instructions or mind set, could be used to measurethe therapist’s acceptance of the client, and the client’s acceptance of serf. Operationally then, the degree of therapist acceptance would be equated to a certain score on this instrument. Whether client serf-acceptance changed during therapy would be indicated by pre- and post-messurements. The relationship of any change to therapy would be determined by comparison of changes in therapy to changes during a control period or in a control group. Wewould finslly be able to say ~jwhether a rehtionship existed between therapist acceptance and client self-acceptance, as operationally defined, and the correhtion between the two. The second and third hypotheses involve real difficulty in toeas= It maybe surprising to some to find hypotheses regarding such subiecrive experience treated as matters for an obiective science. Yet the best thinking in psychology has gone far beyond a primitive behaviorism, and.has recog= nlzed that the obiectivity of psychology as science rests upon its method, not upon its content. Thus the most subiective feelings, apprehensions, tensions, satisfactions, or reactions, may be dealt with scientific~v, providing only that they may be given clearcut operational definition. Stephenson, among others, presents this point of view forcefully (in his Postulates of Behaviorism) and through his Q Technique, has contributed impormntiy m the oDjectitlcation of such subjective materials for scientific study. urement, but there is no reason to suppose that they could not be objectively studied, as our sophisdeation in psychological mensurement increases. Sometype of attitude test or Q-surt might be the instrument for the second hypothesis, measuring the attitude of therapist toward client, and of client toward self. In this case the continuum would be from objective regard of an external object to a personal and subjective experiencing. The instrumentation for hypothesis three might be physiological, since it seems likely" that experiential learning has physiologically measurable ooncomitants. Another possibility would be to infer experiential learning from its effectiveness, and thus measure the effectiveness of learning in different areas. At the present stage of our methodologyhypothesis three might be beyond us, but certainly within the foreseeable future, it too could be given operational definition and tested. The findings from these studies would be of this order. Let us becomesupposifious, in order to illustrate more concretely. Suppose we find that therapist acceptance leads to client self-acceptance, and that the correlation is in the neighborhoodof .70 between the t’wo variables. In hypothefis two we might find the hypothesis ansupporte& but find that the more the therapist regarded the client as a person, the more the client’s self-acceptance increased. Thus we would have learned that person-centeredness is an element of acceptance, but that it has little to do with the client becoming more of a person to himself. Let us also suppose hypothesis three upheld with experiential learning of certain describable sorts taking place much more in therapy than in the control subjects. Glossing over all the qualifications and ramifications which would be present in the findings, and omitting reference to the unexpected leads into personality dynamics which would crop up (since these are hard to imagine in advance) the preceding paragraph gives us some notion of what science can offer in this field. It can give us a more and more exact description of the events of therapy and the changes which take place. It can begin to formulate sometentative laws of the dynamics of humanrelationships. It can offer public" and replieable statements, that if certain operationally definable conditions exist in the therapist or in the relationship, then certain client: behaviors maybe expected with a knowndegree of probability’. It: 209 Persons or Science? can presumably do this for the field of therapy and personality change as it is in the process of doing for such fields as perception and learning. Eventually theoretical formulations should draw together these different areas, enunciating the laws which appear to govern alteration in humanbehavior, whether in the situations we classify as perception, those we classify as learning, or the more global and molar changes which occur in therapy, involving both perception and learning. SOME Issum Here are two very different methodsof perceiving the essential aspects of psychotherapy, two very different approaches to forging ahead into new territory in this field. As presented here, and as they frequently exist, there seems almost no commonmeeting ground between the two descriptions. Each represents a vigorous way of seeing therapy. Each seems to be an avenue to the significant truths of therapy. Wheneach of these views are held by different individuals or groups, they constitute a basis of sharp disagreement. When each of these approaches seems txue to one individual, like myself, then he feels himself conflicted by these two viev~ Thoughthey maysuperficially be reconciled, or regarded as complementaryto each other, they seem to me to be basically antagonistic in many ways. I should like to raise certain issues which these two viewpoints pose for me. THESC~IST~S QUESTIONS First let me pose some of the questions which the scientific viewpoint asks of the experiential (using scientific and experiential simply as loose labels to indicate the two views). The hard-headed scientist listens to the experiential account, and raises several searching questions. 1. First of all he wants to know, "Howcan you knowthat this account, or any account given at a previous or later time, is true? Howdo you know that it has any relationship to reality? If we are to rely on this inner and subjective experience as being the truth 210 ~c~ ~ Psv~ about humanrelationships or about ways of altering personality, then Yogi, Christian Science, dianetics, and the delusions of a psychotic individual who believes himself to be Jesus Christ, are all true, just as true as this accounLEach of them represents the truth as perceived inwardly by some individual or group of individuals. If we are to avoid this morass of mnltiple and contradictory truths, we must fall back on the only methodwe knowfor achieving an ever-closer approximation to reality, the scientific method." 2. "In the second phce, this experiential approach shuts one off from improving his therapeutic skill, or discovering the less than satisfactory elements in the relationship. Unless one regards the present description as a perfect one, which is unlikely, or the present level of experience in the therapeutic relationship as being the most effective possible, which is equally unlikely, then there are unknown flaws, imperfections, blind spots, in the account as given. Howare these to be discovered and corrected? The experiential approach can offer nothing but a trial and error process for achieving this, a process which is slow and which offers no real guarantee of achieving this goaL Even the criticisms or suggestions of others are of little help, since they do not arise from within the experience and hence do not have the vital authority of the relationship itself. But the scientific method, and the procedures of a modern logical positivism, have muchto offer here. Any experience which can be described aC all can be described in operational terms. Hypotheses can be forrnulsted and put to test, and the sheep of truth can thus be separated from the goats of error. This seems the only sure road to improvement, self-correction, growth in knowledge." 3. The scientist has another commentto make. "Implicit in your description of the therapeutic experience seems to be the notion that there are elements in it which cannot be predicted--that there is some type of spontaneity or (excuse the term) free will operative here. Youspeak as though someof the client’s behavior-- and perhaps some of the therapist’s--is not caused, is not a link in a sequence of cause and effect. Without desiring to becomemetaphysical, may I raise the question as to whether this is defeatism? Since rarely we can discover what causes much of behavior-- you yourself speak of creating the conditions where certain behavioral re- p~soar or Science? 211 sults follow ~ then why give up at any point? Whynot at least ar/m toward uncovering the causes of all behavior? This does not meanthat the individual must regard himself as an automaton, but in our search for the facts we shall not be hampered by a belief that somedoors are closed to u~" 4. Finally, the scientist cannot understand why the therapist, the experientialist, should challenge the one tool and methodwhich is responsible for almost all the advances which we value. "In the curing of disease, in the prevention of infant mortality, in the growing of larger crops, in the preservation of food, in the manufacture of all the things that makelife comfortable, from books to nylon, in the understanding of the universe, what is the foundation stone? It is the method of science, applied to each of these, and to manyother problems. It is true that it has improved methodsof warfare, too, serving man’s destructive as well as his consU’uctive purposes, but even here the potentiality for social usefulness is very great. So why should we doubt this same approach in the social science field? To be sure advances here have been slow, and no hw as fundamental as the law of gravity has as yet been demonstrated, but are we to give up this approach out of impatience? What possible alternative offers equal hope? If we are agreed that the social problems of the world are very pressing indeed, if psychotherapy offers a windowinto the most crucial and significant dynamics of change in humanbehavior, then surely the course of action is to apply to psychotherapy the most rigorous canons of scientific method, on as broad a scale as possible, in order that we may most rapidly approach a tentative knowledge of the laws of individual behavior and of attitudinal change." THEQUESTIONS OF THEF_~PERIENTIALISY While the scientist’s questions mayseem to some to settle the matter, his commentsare far from being entirely satisfying to the therapist whohas lived the experience of therapy. Such an individual has several points to makein regard to the scientific view. 1. "In the first place’" this "expetientialist" points out, "science always has to do with the other, the object. Various logicians of science, including Stevens, the psychologist, show that it is a basic 212 R~s~ea n¢ PsYc~or~_a~y element of science that it always has m do with the observable objecr~ the observable other. This is true, even if the scienr~ is experimenting on himself, for to that degree he treats himself as the observable other. It never has anything to do with the experiencing me. Nowdoes not this quality of science meanthat it must forever be irrelevant to an experience such as therapy, which is intensely personal, highly subjective in its inwardness, and dependent entirely on the relationship of two individuals each of whomis an experiencing me? Science can of course study the events which occur, but always in a way which is irrelevant to what is occurring. An analogy would be to say that science can conduct an autopsy of the dead events of therapy, but by its very nature it can never enter into the living phydologyof therapy. It is for this reason that therapists recognize--usually intuitively--that any advance in therapy, any fresh knowledgeof it, any significant new hypotheses in regard to it--must comefrom the experience of the therapists and clients, and can never come from science. Again to use an analogy. Cerheavenly bodies were discovered solely from examination of the scientific measurementsof the courses of the stars. Then the astronomers searched for these hypothesized bodies and found them. It seems decidedly unlikely that there will ever be a similar outcome in therapy, since science has nothing to say about the internal personal experience which T have in therapy. It can only speak of the events which occur in ’him.’" 2. "Because science has as its field the ’other,’ the ’object,’ it means that everything it touches is transformed into an object. This has never presented a problem in the physical sciences. In the biological sciences it has caused certain difl~cnlties. A numberof medical men feel some concern as to whether the increasing tendency to view the humanorganism as an object, in spite of its scientific efficacy, may not be unfortunate for the patient. They would prefer to see him again regarded as a person. It is in the social sciences, however, that this becomesa genuinely serious issue. It meansthat the people studied by the social scientist are always objects. In therapy, both client and therapist become objects for dissection, but not persons with whomone enters a living relationship. At first ghnce, this maynot seem importan~ Wemaysay that only in his role as scien- p~$o~ or Sc/e~e? 213 tist does the individual regard others as objects. He can also step out of this role and becomea person. But if we look a little further we will see that this is a superficial answer. If we project ourselves into the future, and suppose that we had the answers to most of the questions which psychology investigates today, what then? Then we would find ourselves increasingly impelled to treat all others, and even ourselves, as objeem The knowledgeof all humanrehtionships would be so great that we would knowit rather than live the rehtionships uureflectively. Wesee some foretaste of this in the attitude of sophisticated parents whoknowthat affection ’is good for the child.’ This knowledgefrequently stands in the way of their being themselves, freely, unreflectively -- affectionate or not. Thus the development of science in a field like therapy is either irrelevant to the experience, or mayactually makeit more difficult to live the relationship as a personal, experiential event." 3. The experientialist has a further concern. "Whenscience tramforms people into objects, as mentioned above, it has another effect. The end result of science is to lead toward manipulation. This is less true in fields like astronomy, but in the physical and social sciences, the knowledge of the events and theft rehtionships lead to manipulation of some of the elements of the equation. This is unquestionably true in psychology, and would be true in therapy. If we know all about howlearning takes place, we use that knowledgeto manipulate persons as objects. This statement phces no value judgment on manipulation. It may be done in highly ethical fashion. Wemay even manipulate ourselves as objects, using such knowledge. Thus, knowingthat learning takes place more rapidly with repeated review rather than long periods of concentration on one lesson, I may use this knowledgeto manipulate mylearning in Spanish. But knowledge is power. As I learn the laws of learning I use them to manipulate others through advertisements, through propaganda, through prediction of their responses and the control of those responses. It is not too strong a statement to say that the growth of knowledge in the social sciences contains within itself a powerful tendency toward social eontxol, toward control of the manyby the few. An equally strong tendency is toward the weakening or destruction of the existential person. Whenall are regarded as objects, the sub- 214 Rzse~c~m Ps~cu~ jectlve individual, the inner self, the person in the process of becomhag, the unreflective comciousness of being, the wholeinward side of living life, is weakened, devalued, or destroyed. Perhaps this is best exemplified by two books. Skinner’s WaldenTwois a psychologist’s picture of paradise. To Skinner it must have seemed desirable, unless he wrote it as a tremendous satire. At any rate it is a paradise of manipulation, in which the extent to which one can be a person is greatly reduced, unless one can be a memberof the ruling council. Huxley’s Brave NewWorld is frankly satire, bur por.trays ~vidly the loss of personhood which he sees as assochted with increasing psychological and biological knowledge. Thus, to put it bluntly, it seems that a developing social science (as nowconceived and pursued) leads to social dictatorship and individual loss of personhood. The dangers perceived by Kierkegaard a century ago in this respect seem muchmore real now, with the increase of knowledge,than they could have then." 4. "Finally," says the experienfialist, "doesn’t all this point to the fact that ethics is a more basic consideration than science? I am not blind to the value of science as a tool, and am aware that it cart be a very valuable tool. But unless it is the tool of ethical persons, with all that the term persons implies, mayit not becomea Juggernaot? Wehave been a long time recognizing this issue, because in physical science it took centuries for the ethical issue to become crucial, but it has at last becomeso. In the social sciences the ethical issues arise muchmore quickly, because persons are involved. But in psychotherapy the issue arises most qmcklyand most deeply. Here is the maximizingof all that is subjective, inward, personal; here a relationship is lived, not examined, and a person, not an object’ emerges; a person who feels, chooses, believes, acts, not as an automaton, but as a person. Andhere too is the ultimate in science --the objective exploration of the most subjective aspects of life; the reduction to hypotheses, and eventually to theorems, of all that has been regarded as most personal, most completely inward, most: thoroughly a private world. And because these two views come so sharply into focus here, we must make a choice--an ethical personal choice of values. We may do it by default, by not raising" the question. Wemaybe able to makea choice which will someho,a~ persons or Science? 215 conserve both values ~ but choose we must. And I am asking that we think long and hard before we give up the values that pertain to being a perSon, to experiencing, to living a relatiomhip, to becoming, that pertain to one’s self as a process, to one’s self in the existential moment, to the inward subjective self that lives." THEDILEMMA. There you have the contrary views as they occur sometimes explieidy, moreoften implicitly, in current psychological thinking. There you have the debate as it exists in me. Wheredo we go? Whatdirection do we take? Has the problem bean correctly described or is it fallacious? Whatare the errors of perception? Or if it is essentially as described, must we choose one or the other? And if so, which one? Or is there some broader, more inclusive formulation which can happily encompassboth of these views without damageto either? A CHa a v Vmw0F In the year which has elapsed since the foregoing material was written, I have from time to time discussed the issues with students, colleagues and friends. To some of them I amparticularly indebted for ideas which have taken root in me.* Gradually I have cometo believe that the most basic error in the original formulation was in the deseription of science. I should like, in this section, to attempt to correct that error, and in the following section to reconcile the revised points of view. The major shortcoming was, I believe, in viewing science as some. thing "out there," something spelled with a capital S, a "body of knowledge" existing somewherein space and time. In commonwith manypsychologists I thought of science as a systematized and or¯ I wouldlike to mention myspecial debt to discussions with, ~nd published and unpublished papers by Robert M. Lipgar, Ross L. Mooney,David A. Rodgers and Eugene Streich. My own thinking has fed so deeply on theirs, and becomeso intertwined with theirs, that I wouldbe at a loss to acknowledge specific obligations. I only know that in what follows there is much which springs from them, through me. I have also profited from correspondence regarding the paper with AnneRoe and Walter Sm~ 216 ~c~ IN PsY¢~o~7~u~Y ganized collection of tentatively verified facts, and saw the methodology of science as the socially approved meansof accumulating this body of knowledge, and continuing its verification. It has seemed Somewhatlike a reservoir into which all and sundry may dip their buckets to obtain water-- with a guarantee of 99%purity. When viewed in this external and impersonal fashion, it seems not unreasonable to see Science nor only as discovering knowledge in lofty fashion, but as involving depersonalization, a tendency to manipulate, a denial of the basic freedom of choice which I have met experientially in therapy. I should like nowto view the scientific approach from a different, and I hope, a moreaccurate perspective. Scizscz m Pg~oss Science exists only in people. Each scientitic project has its creative inception, its process, and its tentative conclusion, in a person or persons. Knowledge--even scientific knowledge-- is that which is subjectively acceptable. Scientific knowledge can be communicated only to those whoare subiectively ready to receive its cotnmunlcation. The utilization of science also occurs only through people whoare in pursuit of values which have meaning for then-*. These statements summarizevery briefly something of the change in emphasis which I would like to makein my description of scienceLet me follow through the various phases of science from this point of view. T~z Ca~zATIVZ PaA~ Science has its inception in a particular person who is pursuing aims, values, purposes, which have personal and subjective meaning for him. As a part of this pursuit, he, in some area, "wants to find ouC’ Consequently, if he is m be a good scientist, he immerses himself in the relevant experience, whether that be the physics laboratory, the world of phnt or animal life, the hospital, the psychobgical hboratory or clinic, or whatever. This immersionis complete and subjective, similar to the immersion of the therapist in therapy, described previously. He senses the field in which he is interested, he lives it He does more than "think" about it-- he lets his organism take over and react to it, both on a knowingand on a.n p~so’r,s or Science? 217 m~:nowinglevel. He comesto sense morethan he could pose~bly verbalize about his fidd, andreacts org~s~c~yin terms of r~ hdonshipswhichare not present in his awareness. Out of this complete subjective immersion comes a creative forming, a sense of direction, a vague formulation of relationships hitherzo unrecognized. Whittled down,sharpened, formulated in dearer terms, this creative forming becomes a hypothesis -- a statemerit of a tentative, personal, sublecuve faith. The sclennst Is raying, drawing upon all his knownand unknownexperience, that "I have a hunch that such and such a relatiomhip e~-~s, and the existence of this phenomenonhas relevance to my personal values." WhatI amdescribing is the initial phase of science, probably in most important phase, but one which Americansciem~s, particuhrly psychologists, have been prone mminimize or ignore. It is not so muchthat it has been denied as that it has been qnicldy brushed off. KennethSpence has said that this aspect of science is "simply taken for granted."* Like manyexperiences taken for granted, it also tends to be forgotten. It is indeed in the matrix of immediate personal, subjective experience that all science, and each individual scientific research, has its origin. CHF.Clr,.OZG WITHREALITY The science has then creatively achieved his hyporhes/s, his tentative faith. But does it check with reality? Experience has shown each one of us that k is very easy to deceive ourselves, to believe something which hter experience shows is not so. Howcan I tell whether this tentative belief has somereal rehdouship to observed facts? I can use, not one line of evidence only, but several I can surround my observation of the facts with various precautions to make sure I am not deceiving myself. I can consult with others ¯ It maybe pertinent to quote the sentences from whichthis phrase is taken. "... the data of all sciences have the same origin-- namely, the immediate experience of an observing person, the scientist himself. That is to say, immediate experience, the initial matrix out of which all sciences develop, is no longer considered a matter of concern for the scientist qua scientist. He simply’ takes it for granted and then proceeds to the task of describing the events occurring in it and discovering and formniadngthe nature of the relationships holding amongthem." KennethW. Spence, in psychological Theory, ed. by M. H. Marx(NewYork: Macmillan, 1951), p. 173. 218 Rp-~mc~ m Psvc~ whohave also been concerned with avoiding self-deception, and learn useful waysof catching myself in unwarranted beliefs, based on misinterpretation of observations. I can, in short, begin to use all the ehborare methodologywhich science has accumulated. I discover that stating my hypothesis in operational terms will avoid many blind alleys and false conclusions. 1 learn that control groups can help me to avoid drawing false inferences. I learn that correlations, and t tests and critical ratios and a whole array of statistical prOcedures can likewise aid me in drawing only reasonable inferenceS. Thus scientific methodologyis seen for what it truly is-- a way of preventing me from deceiving myself in regard to my creatively formed subjective hunches which have developed out of the relatiouship between me and my material. It is in this context, and perhaps only in this context, that the vast structure of operationism, logical positivism, research design, tests of significance, etc. have their place. Theyexist, not for themselves, hut as servants in th© attempt to check the subjective feeling or hunchor hypothesis of a person with the objective fact. Andeven throughout the use of such rigorous and impersonal methods, the important choices are all made subjectively by the scientist. To which of a numberof hypotheses shall I devote time? What kind of control group is most suitable for avoiding self-deception in this particular research? Howfar shall I carry the statistical analysis? Howmuchcredence mayI place in the findings? Each of these is necessarily a subjective personal judgment, emphasizing that the splendid structure of science res~ basically upon its subjective use by persons. It is the best instrument we have yet been able to devise to check upon our organismic sensing of the universe. THEFINDINCa If, as scientist, I like the way I have gone about my investigation. if I have been open to all the evidence, if I have selected and used intelligently all the precautions against self-deception which I have been able to assimilate from others or to devise myself, then I will give mytentative belief to the findings which have emerged. I will regard them as a springboard for further investigation and further seeking. p~rsons or Science? 219 It seems to me that in the best of science, the primary purpose is to provide a more satisfactory and dependable hypothesis, belief, faith, for the investigator himself. To the extent that the scientist is endeavoring to prove something to someoneelse--an error into which I have fallen more than once-- then I believe he is using science to bolster a personal insecurity, and is keeping it from its truly creative role in the service of the person. In regard to the findings of science, the subiective foundation is well shown in the fact that at times the scientist mayrefuse to believe his own findings. "The experiment showedthus and so, but I believe it is wrong," is a theme which every scientist has experienced at some time or other. Somevery fruitful discoveries have grown out of the persistent disbelief, by a scientist, in his ownfindings and those of others. In the hst analysis he mayphce moretrust in his total organismic reactions than in the methodsof science. There is no doubt that this can result in serious error as well as in scientific discoveries, but it indicates again the leading place of the subjective in the use of science. COMMUNICATION OF SCIENTIFIC FINDIN~ Wading along a coral reef in the Caribbean this morning, I saw a large blue fish--I think. If you, quite independently, saw it too, then I feel more confident in my ownobservation. This is what is knownas intersubjective verification, and it plays an important part in our understanding of science. If I take you (whether in conversation or in print or behaviorally) through the steps I have take n in .~ ,~an investigation, and it seems to you too that I have not d~ceiVedmyself, and that I have indeed come aeross a new relationship which is relevant to my values, and that I am justified in having a tentative faith in this relationship, then we have the beginnings of Science with a capital S. It is at this point that we are likely to think we have created a body of scientific knowledge.Actually there is no such body of knowledge.There are only tentative beliefs, existing subjectively, in a numberof different persons. If these beliefs are not tentative, then what exists is dogma,not science. If on the other hand, no one but the investigator believes the finding then this findhag is either a personal and deviant matter, an instance of psycho- 220 ~crn m ~CHOnmmAPT pathology-, or else it is an unusual truth discovered by a genius, which as yet no one is subjectively ready to believe. This leads me to commenton the group which can put tentative faith in any given scientific finding. COMMUNICATION TOWHOM~ It is clear that scientific findings can be communicatedonly to those who have agreed m the same ground rules of investigation. The Australian bushmanwill be quite unimpressed with the findings of science regarding bacterial infection. He knowsthat illness truly" is caused by evil spirits. It is only whenhe too agrees to scientific method as a good means of preventing self-deception, that he will be likely to accept its fioding~ But even amongthose whohave adopted the ground rules of science, tentative belief in the findings of a scientific research can only occur where there is a subjective readiness to believe. One could find manyexamples. Mostpsychologists are quite ready to believe evidence showingthat the lecture system produces significant increments of learning, and quite unready to believe that the turn of an umeencard may be called through an ability labelled extrasensory perception. Yet the scientific evidence for the latter is considerably more impeccable than for the former. Likewise whenthe so-called "Iowa studies" first came out, indicating that intelligence might be considerably altered by environmental conditionS, there was great disbelief amongpsychologists, and manyattacks on the imperfect scientific methodsused. The scientific evidence for this finding is not muchbetter today than it was whenthe Iowa studies first appeared, but the subjective readiness of psychologists to believe such a finding has altered greatly. A historian of science has noted that empiricists, had they existed at the time, would have beer, the first to disbelieve the findings of Copernicus. It appears then that whether I believe the scientific findings of others, or those from my ownstudies, depends in part on my readiness to put a tentative belief in such findings.* One reason we are ¯ One example from myown experience may suffice. In 1941 a research study done under my sapervlslon showed that the future adjusUnent of Personsor Science? 22L not particularly aware of this subjective fact is that in the physical sciences particularly, we have gradually adopted a very large area of experience in which we are ready to believe any finding which can be shown to rest upon the rules of the scientific game, properly played. ThE UsE ov Sozscz But not only is the origin, process, and conclusion of science somethingwhich exists only in the subjective experience of persons so also is its utilization. "Science" will never depersonalize, or nmnipulate, or control individuals. It is only persons whocan and will do that. That is surely a most obvious and trite observation, yet a deep realization of it has had muchmeaningfor me. It meansthat the use which will he madeof scientific findings in the field of personality is and will he a matter of subjective personal choice --the same type of choice as a person makes in therapy. To the extent that he has defensively closed off areas of his experience from awareness, the person is more likely to make choices which are socially destruefive. To the extent that he is open to all phases of his experience we maybe sure that this person will be more likely to use the findings and methodsof science (or any other tool or opacity) in a manner which is personally and socially constructive.* There is, in actuality then, no threatening entity of "Science" which can in any way affect our destiny. There are only people. While manyof them are indeed delinquent adolescents was best predicted by a me~creof their realistic selfunderstanding and self-acceptance. The instrument was a crude one, but it was a better predictor than measures of family environment, hereditary capacities, social milieu, and the llke. At that time I was simply not ready to believe such a finding, because my own belief, llke that of most psychologists, was that such factors as the emotional climate in the family and the influence of the peer group were the real determinants of future delinquency and non-delinquency. Only gradually, as my experience with psychotherapy continued and deepened, was it possible for meto give mytentative belief to the findings of this study and of a later one (1944) which confirmed it. (For report of these two studies see "The role of self-understanding in the prediction of behavior" by C. R. Rogers, B. L. KeR, and H. McNeil, ]. Consult. Psychol., 12, 1948, pp. 174-186. " I have spelled out more fufiy the rationale for this view in another paper "Toward a Theory of Creativit¢." 222 1~.4~ m ~ ~ threatening and dangerous in their defensiveness, and modemscio enrific knowledge mul6plies the social threat and danger, this is not the whole picture. There are two other significant facets. (1) There are manypersons whoare relatively open to their experience and hence likely to be socially constructive. (2) Both the subjective experience of psychotherapy and the scientific findings regarding k indicate that individuals are motivated to change, and mayIm helped to change, in the direction of greater openness to experience, and hence in the direction of behavior which is enhancing of self and society, rather than destructive. To put it briefly, Science can never threaten us. Only persons can do that. And while individuals can be vastly destructive with the tools placed in their hands by scientific knowledge, this is only" one side of the picture. Wealready have subjective and obiective knowledge of the basic principles by which individuals mayachieve the more constructive social behavior which is natural to their organ~ mic process of becoming. A Nzw Im’E~P, ATIO~ What this line of thought has achieved for me is a fresh integration in which the conflict between the "experientialist" and the "scientist" tends to disappear. This particular integration may not be acceptable to others, but it does have meaningto me. Its major tenets have been largely implicit in the preceding section, but I will try to state them here in a way which takes cognizance of the arguments bctween the opposing points of view. Science, as well as therapy, as well as all other aspects of living, is rooted in and based upon the immediate, subiecrive experience of a person. It springs from the inner, total, organismic expenencung which is only partially and imperfectly communicable. It is one phase of subjective living. It is because I find value and reward in humanrelationships that I enter into a relationship knownas therapeutic, where feelings and cognition merge into one unitary experience which is lived rather persons or Science? 223 examined, in which awareness is non-reflective, and where I amparticipant rather than observer. But because I am curious about the exquisite orderliness which appears to exist in the universe and in this relationship I can abstract myself from the experience and look upon it as an observer, makingmyself and/or others the obiects of that observation. As observer I use all of the hunches which grow oat of the living experience. To avoid deceiving myself as observer, to gain a more accurate picture of the order which exists, I makeuse of all the canons of science. Science is not an impersonal something, but simply a person living subjectively another phase of himself. A deeper understanding of therapy (or of any other problem) may comefrom living it, or from observing it in accordance with the rules of science, or from the communicationwithin the self between the two types of experience. As to the subjective experience of choice, it is not only primary in therapy, but it is also primary in the use of scientific method by a person. WhatI will do with the knowledgegained through scientific method--whether I will use it to understand, enhance, enrich, or use it to control, manipulate and destroy--is a matter of subieetire choice dependent upon the values which have personal meanhag for me. If, out of fright and defensiveness, I block out from my awareness large areas of experience,--if I can see only those facts which support my present beliefs, and amblind to all others--if I can see only the obiective aspects of life, and cannot perceive the subiective--if in any way I cut off my perception from the full range of its actual sensitivity--then I am likely to he socially destructive, whether I use as tool the knowledgeand instruments of science, or the power and emotional strength of a subiective relationship. Andon the other hand if I amopen to myexperience, and can permit aU of the sensmgsof my intricate organism to be available to my awareness, then I am likely to use myself, my subiective experience, and my scientific knowledge, in ways which are realistically constructive. This then is the degree of integration I have currently been able to achieve between two approaches first experienced as conflicting. It does not completely resolve all the issues posed in the earlier sec- tion, but it seems to point toward a resolution. It rewrites the problem or reperceives the issue, by putting the subjective, e~’tendal person, with the values which he holds, at the foundation and the root of the therapeutic relationship and of the scientific relationship. For science too, at i~s inception, is an "I-Thou" relationship with a person or persons. And only as a subjective person can I enter into either of these relationships. // Personality Change in Psychotherapy The paper ~vhleh follows gives a few of the salient features of a very large scale research carried on at the University of Chicago Counseling Center from 1950-1954, made possible by the generous ~mpportof the Rockefeller Foundation, through its Medical Sciences Division. I ,was invited to present a paper to the Fifth International Congress on Mental Health in Toronto, in 19Y4, and chose to attempt to describe certain portions of that program. Within a month of the delivery of this paper, our book des~ihing the whole program ~as published by the University of Chicago Press. Although Rosalind Dymondand I served as editors as well as authors of certain portions of the hook, the other authors deserve equal eredit for the book and for the vast amountof ,work from ~hich this paper skims a few of the more striking points. These other authors are: ]obn M. Butler, DermondC~gbt, ThomasGordon, Donald L. Crrumrnon, Gerard V. Haigb, Eve S. ]ohn, Esselyn C. Rudikoff, ]uli~ Seeman, Rolland R. Tougas, ond Manuel]. Vargas. A special reason for including this presentation in this volume is that it gives in Im’ef form some of the exciting progress we have made in the measurementof that changing, nebulous, highly signifwara determining aspect of personality, the self. 225 IT IS ~ ln~nsE of this paper to present some of the high lights of the experience which I and mycolleagues have had as we endeavored to measure, by objective scienfffic methods, the outComesof one form of individual psychotherapy. In order to make these high fights understandable, I shall describe briefly the context in which this research undertaking has been carried on. For many years I have been working, with my psychologist colleagues, in the field of psychotherapy. We have been trying to learn, from our experience in carrying on psychotherapy, what is effective in bringing about constructive change in the personality and behavior of the maladjusted or disturbed person seeking help. Gradually we have formulated an approach to psychotherapy, based upon this experience, which has variously been termed non-direct/re or client-centered. This approach and its theoretical rationale have been described in a number of books (I, 2, $, 6, 8) and many articIes. It has been one of our persistent aims to subject the dynamics of therapy and the results of therapy to rigorous research investigation. It is our belief that psychotherapy is a deeply subjective existential experience in both client and therapist, full of complex subdeties, and involving many nuances of personal interaction. Yet it is also our conviction that if this experience is a significant one, in which deep learnings bring about personality change, then such changes should be amenable to research investigation. Over the past fourteen years we have made many such research studies, of both the process and the outcomes of this form of therapy. (See 5, particniarly chapters 2, 4, and 7, for a summarized account of this body of research.) During the past five years, at the Counseling Center of the University of Chicago, we have been pushing forward the boundaries of such research by meansof a coordinated series of investigations designed to throw light upon the outcomes of this form of psychotherapy. It is from this current research program that I wish to present certain significant features. pers~mdity Cb~gein Psycbotb~r~py 227 THREE ASPECTS OFOURRF.S~CH The three aspects of our research which would, I believe, have the greatest amount of meaning to this audience, are these. 1. The criteria which we have used in our study of psychotherapy, criteria which depart from conventional thinking in this area. 2. The design of the research, in which we have solved certain difticulties whichhave hitherto stood in the way of clear-cut result. 3. The progress we have madein measuring subde subjective phenomenain an objective fashion. These three dements in our programcould be utilized in any attempt to measure personality change. Theyare therefore applicable to investigations of any form of psychotherapy, or to the rese~ch study of any procedure designed m bring about alteration in personality or behavior. Let us nowturn to these three elements I have mentioned, taking them up in order. THE~ F0a Taz Rzs~mca Whatis the criterion for research in psychotherapy? This is a most perplexing issue which we faced early in our phnning. There is widespread acceptance of the idea that the purpose of research in this field is to measure the degree of "success" in psychotherapy, or the degree of "cure" achieved. While we have not been uninfluenced by such thinking, we have, after careful consideration, given up these concepts because they are undefinable, are essen6ally value judgment~, and hence cannot be a part of the science of this field. There is no general agreement as to what constitutes "success"-whether it is removal of symptoms, resolution of conflicts, improvement in social behavior, or someother type of change. The concept of "cure" is entirely inappropriate, since in most of these disorders we are dealing with learned behavior, not with a disease. As a consequence of our thinking, we have not asked in our research, "Wassuccess achieved? Wasthe condition cured?" Instead we have asked a question which is scientiilcally much more defeusible, namely, "What are the concomitants of therapy?" 228 R~c~ IN Ps-tc~ In order to have a basis for answering this question we have taken the theory of psychotherapy which we have been developing and have drawn from it the theoretical description of those changes wlfich we hypothesized as occurring in therapy. The purpose of the research is to determine whether the changes which are hypothesized do or do not occur in measurable degree. Thus from the theory of client-~.entered therapy we have drawn hypotheses such as these: during therapy feelings which have previously been denied to awarehess are experienced, and are assimilated into the concept of self; during therapy the concept of the self becomesmorecongruent with the concept of the ideal self; during and after therapy the observed behavior of the client becomesmoresocialized and mature; during and after therapy the client increases in attitudes of self-acceptance, and this is correlated with an increase in acceptance of others. These are a few of the hypotheses we have been able to investigate. It will perhaps be dear that we have abandonedentirely the idea of one general criterion for our studies, and have substituted instead a number of clearly defined variables, each one specitic to the hypothesis being investigated. This meansthat it was our hope in the research to be able to state our conclusions in somesuch form as this: that client-centered psychotherapy produces measurable changes in characteristics a, b, d, and f, for example, but does not produce changes in variables c and e. Whenstatements of this sort are available then the professional worker and the hymanwill be in a position to makea value judgment as to whether he regards as a "success" a process which produces these changes. Such value judgments will not, however, alter the solid facts in our slowly growing scientific knowledgeof the effective dynamics of personality change. Thus in our research we have, in place of the usual global criterion of "success," manyspecific criterion variables, each drawn from our theory of therapy, and each operationally defined. This resolution of the problem of criteria was of great help in making an intelligent selection of research instruments to use in our battery of test. Wedid not ask the unanswerable question as to what instruments would measure success or gore. Weasked instead, specific questions related to each hypothesis. Whatinstrument can po.$onality Change in Psychotherapy 229 be used to measure the individual’s concept of serf? What instrument will give a satisfactory measure of mamtity of behavior? How can we measure the degree of an individual’s acceptance of others? While queStiOnS such as these are difficult, operational answers are discoverable. Thus our decision in regard to criteria gave us much help in solving the whole problem of instnunantafion of the researchTHEDgsxca~oF ~ Rr.se.cac~ The fact that there has been no objective evidence of constructive personality change brought about by psychotherapy, has been mentioned by a numberof thoughtful writers Hebbstates that "there is no body of fact to showthat psychotherapy is valuable" (4, p. 271). Eysenck, after surveying some of the available studies, points out that the data "fail to prove that psychotherapy, Freudian or otherwise, facilitates the recovery of neurotic patients" (3, p. 322). Mindful of this regrettable situation we were eager to set up our investigation in a su~ciendy rigorous fashion that the confirmation or disproof of our hypotheses would establish two points: (a) that significant change had or had not occurred, and (b) that such change, if it did occur, was attributable to the therapy and not to some other factor. In such a complex fidd as therapy k is not easy to devise a research design which will accomplish these aims, bat we believe that we have made real progress in this directiom Having chosen the hypotheses which we wished to test, and the instruments most suitable for their operational measurement, we were now ready for the next step. This selected series of objective research instruments were used to measure various chamcreristics of a group of chants before their therapy, after the completion of therapy, and at a followup point six months to one year hter, as indicated in Figure 1. The clients were roughly typical of those comingto the Counseling Center of the University of Chicago, and the aim was to collect this data, including the recording of all interviews, for at least 25 clientS. The choice was made to make an intensive study of a group of moderate size, rather than a more superficial analysis of a hrger number. 23O RLSE~CH m PsY~o~mu~Y Testing Points ~e-~a~ after before follo~up dayYT---wr/ab/ "--’1-’6-12 morn7 therapy I I I Figurel I I I I R~hD~ A part of the therapy group was set aside as an own-control group. This group was given the battery of research instruments, asked to wait during a two month control period, and then given the battery a second time before counseling. The rationale of this procedure is that if change occurs in individuals simply because they are motivated for therapy, or because they have a certain type of personality structure, then such change should occur during this control period. Another group of individuals not in therapy was selected as an equivalent-control group. This group was equivalent in age and age distribution to the therapy group, and roughly equivalent in socioeconomicstatus, in the proportion of men and women,and of students and non-students. This group was given the same tests as the therapy group, at matchedtime intervals. A portion of this group was given the test battery four times, in order to make them m-ictly parsonallty Changein Psycbotberapy 231 comparableto the own-control therapy group. The rationale of this equivalent-control group is that if change occurs in individuals as the result of the passage of time, or the influence of random variables, or as an artifact of the repeated administration of tests, then such change should be evident in the findings from this group. The over-all logic of this doubly controlled d~gn is that if the therapy group shows changes during and after the therapy period which are significantly greater than those which occur in the owncontrol period or in the equivalent-control group, then it is reasonable to attribute these changes to the influence of the therapy. I cannot, in this brief report, go into the complexand ramified details of the various projects which were carried out within the framework of this research design. A more complete account (7) has been prepared which describes thirteen of the proiects completed thus far. SufHce to say that complete dam on 29 clients, dealt with by 16 therapists, was obtained, as well as complete data on a matched control group. The careful evaluation of the research findings enables us to draw certain conclusions such as these: That profound changes occur in the perceived self of the client during and after therapy; that there is constructive change in the client’s personality characteristics and personality structure, changes whichbring him closer to the personality characteristics of the well-funcrioning persun; that there is change in directions defined as personal integration and adjustment; that there are changes in the maturity of the client’s behavior as observed by friend~ In each instance the change is significantly greater than that found in the control group or in the clients during the own-control period. Only in regard to the hypotheses having to do with acceptant and democratic attitudes in relation to others are the findings somewhatconfused and ambiguous. In our judgment, the research program which has already been completed has been sufficient to modify such statements as those madeby Hebband Eysenck. In regard to client-sponsored psychntherapy, at least, there is now objective evidence of positive changes in personality and behavior in directions which are usually regarded as constructive and these changes are attributable to the therapy. It is the adoption of muitiple specific research criteria and the use of a 232 l~..~c~ m P~a~OTm~nUUMr rigorously controlled research design which makes it possible co makesuch a sratemen~ Tnz ME,~SI:I~MENT OF CIIANOgS IN ~ SELF Since I can only present a very small sample of the results, I will select this sample from the area in which we feel there has been the most significant advance in methodology, and the most provocative findings, namely, our attempts m measure the changes in the client’s perception of himself, and the relationship of self-perception to certsin other variabl~ In order to obtain an objective indication of the client’s self-perception, we madeuse of the newly devised Q-technique, developed by Stephenson (9). A large "universe" of self-descriptive statements was drawn from recorded interviews and other sources. Sometypical statements are: "I am a submissive person"; "I don’t trust my emotions"; "I feel relaxed and nothing bothers me"; "I am afraid of sex"; "I usually like people"; "I have an attractive personality"; "I am afraid of what other people think of me." A random sample of one hundred of these, edited for clarity, was used as the instrument. Theuretically we now had a sampling of all the ways in which an individual could perceive himself. These hundred statements, each printed on a card, were given to the clien~ He was asked to sort the cards to represent himself "as of now," sorting the cards into nine piles from those items most characteristic of himself to those least characteristic. He was told to phce a certain number of items in each pile so as to give an approximately normal distribution of the items. The client sorted the cards in this way at each of the major points, before therapy, after, and at the followup point, and also on several occasions during therapy. Each time that he sorted the cards to picture himself he was also asked to sort them to represent the self he wouldlike to be, his ideal self. Wethus had detailed and objective representations of the client’s self-perception at various points, and his perception of his ideal serf. These various sortings were then inter-correhted, a high correlation between two sortings indicating similarity or lack of change, a low correhtion indicating a dissimilarity, or a marked degree of change. la order to illustrate the way in which this instrument was used to personality Changein PsycbotberatJy 233 test some of our hypotheses in regard to the self, I am going to present some of the findings from the study of one client (from 7, ch. 15) as they relate to several hypotheses. I believe this will indicate the provocative nature of the results more adequately than presenting the general conclusions from our study of serf-perception, though I will try to mention these generalized results in passing. The client from whosedata I will draw material was a woman of 40, most unhappy in her marriage. Her adolescent daughter had had a nervous breakdown, about which she felt guilty. She was a rather deeply troubled person whowas rated on diagnostic measures as seriously neurotic. She was not a memberof the own-conttol group, so entered therapy immediately after taking the first battery of tests. She came for 40 interviews over a period of $ ! months, whenshe concluded therapy. Followuptests were administered seven months later, and at that time she decided to comein for 8 more interviews. A second folinwup study was done 5 months later. The counselor iudged that there had been very considerable movement in therapy. Figure 2 presents someof the data regarding the changing selfperception of this client. Each circle represents a sorting for the ideal self or the self. Sortings were done before therapy, after the seventh and twenty-fifth interviews, at the end of therapy, and at the first and second foUowuppoints. The correhtions are given between manyof these sortings. Let us now examine this data in reference to one of the hypotheses which we were interested in testing, namely, that the perceived self of the client will change more during therapy than during a period of no therapy. In this particular case the change was greater during therapy (r = .39) than during either of the followup periods (r =74, .70) or the whole twelve month period of foliowup (r = .65). Thus the hypothesis is upheld in this one case. In this respect she was characteristic of our clients, the general finding being thai: the change in the perceived self during therapy was significantly greater than during the control or followup periods, and significantly greater than the change occurring in the control group. Let us consider a second hypothesis. It was predicted that during and after therapy the perceived self would be more positively valued, (Fi~ires see correlations~ decimal points omitted.) Self-Ideal 21 47 45 69 71 79 --21 Se f RememberedSelf 51,~ months Time I before therapy Figure 2 The changing relationships i 7 months i $months l. after first second therapy follo’w..up follow-up between Self and Self-Ideal personality Cba~ge in prycbotber~y 255 i.e., would become more congruent with the ideal, or v~lued, self. This client exhibits considerable discrepancy between the self she is and the self she would like to be, when she first comes in (t ----- .21). During and after therapy this discrepancy decreases, a decided degree of congruence existing at the final followup study (r = .79), thus confirming our hypothesis. This is typical of our general findings, which showed a significant increase in congruence between self and ideal, during therapy, for the group as a whole. Close study of Figure 2 will showthat by the end of our study, the client perceives herself as having becomevery similar to the person she wanted to be whenshe came in (rlB’SF2 = .70). It may also be noted that her final self-ideal became slightly more similar to her initial self (rSB’IF2 = .36) than was her initial ideal. Let us briefly consider another hypothesis, that the change in the perceived self will not be random, but will be in a direction which expert judges would term adjustment. As one part of our study the Q-sort cards were given to a group of clinical psychologists not associated with the research, and they were asked to sort the cards as they would be sorted by a "well-adjusted" person. This gave us a criterion sorting with which the selfperception of any client could be compared. A simple score was developed to express the degree of simihrity between the client’s self-perception and this representation of the "adjusted" person. This was called the "adjustment score," higher scores indicating a higher degree of "adjustment." In the case of the client we have been considering the adjustment scores for the six successive self-sorts shownin Figure 2, beginning with the self as perceived before therapy, and ending at the second fonowuppoint, are as follows: 35, 44, 41, 52, 54, 51. The trend toward improved adjustment, as operationally defined, is evident. This is also true for the group as a whole, a marked increase in adjusmaent score occurring over the period of therapy, and a very slight regression in score during the follownp period. There was essentially no change in the control individuals. Thus, both for this particular client, and for the group as a whole, our hypothesis is upheld. Whena qualitative analysis of the different self-sore is made, R~s~c~ m Psvc~ctr:.~,~y the findings further confirm this hypothesis. Whenthe initial selfpicture is compared with those after therapy, it is found that after therapy the client sees herself as changed in a number of ways. She feels she is more self-confident and self-reliant, understands" herself better, has more inner comfort, and morecomfortable relationships with others. She feels less guilty, less resentful, less driven and insecure, and feels less need for self-concealment. These qualitative changes are similar to those shownby the other clients in the research and are in general in accord with the theory of client-centered therapy. I should like to point out certain additional findings of interest which are illustrated in Figure 2. It will be evident that the representation of the ideal self is much more stable than the representation of the self. The inter-correlations are all above .70, and the conception of the person she would like to be changes relatively little over the whole period. This is characteristic of almost all of our clients. ~Vhile we had formulated no h?’pothesis on this point it had been our expectation that some clients would achieve greater congruence of self and ideal primarily through alteration of their values, others through the alteration of self. Our evidence thus far indicates that this is incorrect, and that with only occasional exceptions, it appears to be the concept of the self which exhibits the greater change. Somechange, however, does occur in the ideal self in the ease of our client and the direction of this slight change is of interest. If we calculate the previously described "adjustment score" of the successive representations of the ideal self of this client, we find that the average score for the first three is 57, but the average of the three following therapy is 51. In other words the self-ideal has become less perfectly "adjusted," or more attainable. It is to some degree a less punislfing goal. In this respect also, this client is characteri_stic of the trend in the whole group. Another finding has to do with the "rememberedself" which is shownin Figure 2. This sorting was obtained by asking the client, at the tin/e of the second followup study, to sort the cards once more to rct~resent herself as she was whenshe first entered therapy. This ren~c~llbcred self turned out to be very different from the selfpicture she had given at the time of entering therapy. It correlated personality Changein PsycbotherOy 237 only .44 with the self-~presen~tion~v~ at that time. Fur~ermore, it was a much less favorable picture of her sell, being f~z morediscrepant from her ideal (r = -.21), and having a low adju.~ment score-- a score of 26 compared to a score of 35 for the initial self-picture. This suggests that in this surfing for the remembered self we have a crude obiective measure of the reduction in defensiv~ hess which has occurred over the eighteen-monthperiod of our study. At the final contact she is able to give a considerably truer picture of the mahdinsted and disturbed person that she was when she entered therapy, a picture which is confirmed by other evidence, as we shall see. Thus the degree of alteration in the self over the total period of a year and a half is perhaps better represented by the correlation of -.13 between the rememberedself and the final sell, than by the correlation of .30 between the initial and final self. Let us now turn to a consideration of one more hypothesi~ In client-centered therapy our theory is that in the psychological safety of the therapeutic relationship the client is able to permit in his awareness feelings and experiences which ordinarily would be repressed, or denied to awareness. These previously denied experiences nowbecomeincorporated into the sell. For example, a client who has repressed a11 feelings of ho~lity maycome, during therapy, to experience his hostility freely. His concept of himself then becomes reorganized to include this realization that he has, at times, hostile feelings toward others. His self-picture becomesto that degree a more accurate mapor representation of the totality of his experience. Weendeavored to translate this portion of our theory into an operational hypothesis, whichwe expressed in this way: During and after therapy there will be an increasing congruence between the self as perceived by the client and the client as perceived by a diagnostician. The assumption is that a skilled person making a psychological diagnosis of the client is moreaware of the totality of the client’s experience patterns, both conscious and unconscious, than is the client. Henceif the client assimilates into his own conscious self-picture many of the feelings and experiences which previously he has repressed, then his picture of himself should becomemore s/milax to the picture which the diagnostician has of him. The method of investigating this hypnthcsis was to take the pro- 238 RESEARCH IN PSYCHOT~y jective test (the Thematic Apperception Test) which had been administered to the client at each point and have these four tests examinedby a diagnostician. In order to avoid any bias, this psychologist was not told the order in which the tests had been adminis. tered. He was then asked to sort the Q-cards for each one of the tests to represent the client as she diagnostically was at that time. This procedure gave us an unbiased diagnostic evaluation, expressed in terms of the sameinstrument as the client had used to portray herself, so that a direct and objective comparison was possible, through correlation of the different Q-sorts. The remit of this study, for this particular client, is shownin Figure 3. The upper portion of this diagram is simply a condensation of the information from Fignre 2. The lowest row shows the sortings madeby the diagnostician, and the correlations enable us to test our hypothesis. It will be observed that at the beginning of therapy there is no relationship bet~veen the client’s perception of herself and the diagnostician’s perception of the client (r = .00). Evenat the end of therapy the situation is the same(r = .05). But by the time of the first followup (not shown) and the second followup, the client’s perception of herself has become substantially like the diagnostician’s perception of her (first followup, r = .56; second followup, r = .55). Thus the hypothesis is clearly upheld, congruencebetween the self as perceived by the client and the client as perceived by a diagnostician having significantly increased. There are other findings from this aspect of the study which are of interest. It will be noted that at the time of beginning therapy the client as perceived by the diagnostician is very dissimilar to the ideal she had for herself (r = -.42). By the end of the study the diagnostician sees her as being decidedly similar to her ideal at that time (r = .46) and even moresimilar to the ideal she held for herself at the time she came in (r = .61). Thus we may say that the objective evidence indicates that the client has become, in her self-perception and in her total personality picture, substantially the person she wished to becomewhenshe entered therapy. Another noteworthy point is that the change in the diagnostician’s perception of the client is considerably sharper than is the change in th~ perceived self of the client (r = -.33, comparedwith r of Diagnostic Picture S~q Sel[dde~ Time 5~ months 13~ 75 ~)~ after tberapy [ 78 12 rnontbs Figure 3 Relationship between Self, Self-Ideal, and Diagnosis ~ J:igures are correlatio~s~ deciTnal points omitted) -zt / / zl~ ~ IB ~-.-~ tbe~[apy before 7!9 \ fol’o~-up ~naI 240 ~CH1N PSYCHOTHERApy .30). In view of the commonprofessional opinion that clients Over. rate the degree of change they have undergone, this fact is of interest. The possibility is also suggested that an individual may change so markedly over a period of eighteen months that at the = conclusion his personality, is more dissimilar than similar to his personality at the outset. One last commenton Figure 3 is in relation to the "remembered self." It will be noted that this rememberedpicture of the self correlates positively with the diagnostic impression (r = .30), thus tending to confirm the previous statement that it represents a moreaccurate and less defensive picture than the client was able to give of herself at the time she entered therapy. SUMMARY .~NDCONCLUSION In this paper I have endeavored to indicate at least a skeleton outline of the comprehensiveinvestigation of psychotherapy nowgoing forward at the University of Chicago. Several features have been mentioned. First is the rejection of a global criterion in the study of therapy, and the adoption of specific operationally defined criteria of change, based upon detailed hypotheses growing out of a theory of the dynamics of therapy. The use of manyspecific criteria has enabled us to makescientific progress in determining the types of change which do and do not occur concomitant with client-centered therapy. A second feature is a new approach to the hitherto unresolved problem of controls in studies of psychotherapy. The research design has included two control procedures, (1) a matched control group which accounts for the influence of time, repeated test-taking, and random variables, and (2) an own-control group in which each client in therapy is matched with himself during a period of no therapy, in order to account for the influence of personality variables and motivation. With this double-control design it has been possibte to conclude that changes during therapy which are not accounted for by the controlled variables, are due to the therapy itself. Another feature selected for presentation was a sample of the personality Changem Psychotherapy 241 progress which has been madein carrying on rigorous obiective investigation of subtle elements of the client’s subiecrive world. Evidence has been presented as to: the change in the self-concept of the client; the degree to which the perceived self becomessimilar to the valued self; the extent to which the self as perceived becomes morecomfortable and adjusted; and the degree to whichthe client’s perception of self becomes more congruent with a diagnostician’s perception of the client These findings tend to confirm the theoretical formulations which have been madeas to the place of the selfconcept in the dynamicprocess of psychotherapy. There arc two conclusions which I would like to leave with you in dosing. The first is that the research programI have described appears to makeit quite clear that objective evidence, meeting the usual canons of rigorous scientific investigation, can be obtained as to the personality and behavioral changes brought about by psychotherapy, and has been obtained for one psychotherapeutie orientation. This meansthat in the future similar solid evidence can be obtained as to whether personality change occurs as a result of other psychotherapies. The second conclusion is in my judgment even more significant. The methodological progress madein recent years means that the manysubtleties of the therapeutic process are nowwide open for research investigation. I have endeavored to illustrate this from the investigation of changes in the self-concep~ But similar methods make it equally possible to study objectively the changing relationship between client and therapist, "transference" and "countertransference" attitudes, the changing source of the cfient’s value system, and the like. I believe it may be said that almost any theoretical construct which is thought to be related to personality change or to the process of psychotherapy, is now amenable to research investigation. This opens a new vista of scientific investigation. The pursuit of this new path should throw muchlight on the dynamics of personality, particularly on the process of personality change in an interpersonal relationship. R~c~ m PsYesor-~.~ REFERENCES i. Axline, V. M. P/ay Therapy. Boston: HoughtonMifflin Co., 1947. 2. Curran, C. A. Persona//ty Factors in Counseling. NewYork: Grun¢ & Srrarron, 1945. 3. Eysenck, H. J. The effects of psychotherapy: ml evaluation, ]. Consult. Psycbol., 1952, 16, 319-324. 4. Hebb, D. O. Orga~zation of Behavior. NewYork: Wiley~ 1949. 5. Rogers, C. R. Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Hooghwa Co., 1951. 6. Rogers, (2. R. Counseling ~ Psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifl~n Co., 1942. 7. Rogers, C. R, and R. Dymond,(Eds.). Psychotherapy and PersonaIity Change. University of Chicago Press, 1954. 8. Snyder, W. U., (Ed.). Casebook of Nondirective Counseling. Boston: HoughtonMifflin Co., 1947. 9. Srephenson, W. U. The Study of Behavior. University of Chicago Pros, 1953. 12 Client-Centered Therapy in Its Context of Research * Howcould I maketoclear, to e European relatively unaccustomed the American traditionaudience of empirical research in psychology, the methods, the findings, the significance, of research in client-centered therapy? This was the task which was set for me by the fact that Dr. G. MarianKinget and I were writing a hook on client-centered therapy to be published first in Flemish and then in French. Dr. Kinget presented the clinical principles of such therapy. I presented the central theories of client-centered tberopy (almost identical with the English presentation, A Theory of Therapy, Personality and Interpersonal Relationships, in S. Koch fed.) Psychology: A Study of a Science, vol. III. (NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 19$9), 184-2S6). I now wished to introduce them the research in which we bad engagedto confirm or discon[itm our theories. This chapter (slightly modified for this volume) is the result, and l hope it may have meaning for Americans as well as Europeans. In one small matter 1 beg the reader’s indulgence. Three pare¯ This is the English version of Chapter XI1 of the volume Psycbotberapie ¢n menseliike z.erboudingen: Tbeorie en praktijk ~,an de non-directie’.’e thcrapie by Carl R. Rogers & G. Marian Kinget, Utrecht. The Netherlands: (URgeverij Her Spectrum, 1960). 243 244 I~,~ m Psxc~on~a~ graphs describing the development and use of the Q-sort by ~bich self-perception is measured, are alraost identical with similar material in Chapter 1l. I left them in so that either chapter might be read independently without reference to the other. This chapter goes back to the earliest of our research efforts, around 1940, and concludes with a description of several of the unfinished projects which are Jtill challenging our best efforts in 1961. Thus I have tried to present at least a small sampling of move than a saore of years of research effort. THESTIMULATION OF RESEARCH One of the most important characteristics of the cJient-centered orientation to therapy is that from the first it has not only stimulated research but has existed in a context of research thinking. The numberand variety of the completed studies is impressive. In 1953 Seamanand Raskin descr~d or mentioned nearly fifty research investigations having to do with client-cantered therapy with adults, in their critical analysis of the trends and directions of such research (9). In 1957 Cart-wright published an annotated bibliography research and theory construction in client-centered therapy, and found it necessary to include 122 references (4). He, like Seeman and Raskin, omitted all references having to do with research in play therapy and group therapy of a client-centered nature. There seems then no question but that the theory and practice of clientcentered therapy have set in motion a surprising number of objective empirical investigations. It seems reasonable to ask ourselves why. In the first place the theory of client-centered therapy has been seen from the first not as dogmaor as truth but as a statement of hypotheses, as a tool for advancing our knowledge.It has been felt that a theory, or any segment of a theory, is useful only if it can be put to tea There has been a sense of commitmentto the objective testing of each significant aspect of our hypotheses, believing that the only way in which knowledge can be separated from individual prejudice and wiskful thinking is through objective investigation. Cliem-CentevedTherapy m Co~tex~of Rese~cb 24.5 To be objective such investigation must be of the sort that another investigator collecting the data in the sameway and performing the same operations upon it, will discover the same or similar findings, and come to the same conclusions. In short we have believed from the first that the field of psychotherapy will be advanced by the open, objective testing of all hypotheses in ways which are publicly communicableand replicable. A second reason for the stimulating effect of the client-centered approach upon research is the orienting attitude that scieatifie study can begin anywhere, at any level of crudity, or refinement; that it is a direction, not a fixed degree of instrumentation. From this point of view, a recorded interview is a small beginning in scientific endeavor, because it involves greater objectification than the memoryof an interview; a crude conceptualization of therapy, and crude instruments for measuring these concepts, are more scientific than no such attempt. Thus individual research workers have felt that they could begin to move in a scientific direction in the areas of greatest interest to them. Out of this attitude has come a series of instruments of increasing refinement for anal) zing interview protocols, and significant beginnings have been madein measuring such seemingly intangible constructs as the self-concept, and the psychological climate of a therapeutic relationship. This leads me to what I believe to be the third major reason for the degree of success the theory has had in encouraging research. The constructs of the theory have, for the most part, been kept to those which can be given operational definition. This has seemed to meet a very pressing need for psychologists and others whohave wished to advance knowledgein the field of personality, but who have been handicapped by theoretical constructs which cannot be defined operationally. Take for examplethe general phenomena encompassedin such terms as the self, the ego, the person. If a construct is developed--as has been done by some theorizers--which includes those inner events not in the awareness of the indiridual as well as those in awareness, then there is no satisfactory way at the present time to give such a construct an operational definition. But by limiting the self-concept to events in awareness, the construct can be given increasingly refined operational definition through the 246 P,,EsF~XC~ n~ l~k-c~o~ Q-technique, the analysis of interview protocols, etc., and thus a whole area of investigation is thrown open. In time the resulting studies maymakeit possible to give operational definition to the duster of events not in awareness. The use of operationally definable constructs has had one other = effect. It has made completely unnecessary the use of "success" and "failure" -- two terms which have no scientific usefulness -- as criteria in studies of therapy. Instead of thinking in these global and ill-defined terms research workers can make specific predictions in terms of operationally definable constructs, and these predictions can be confirmed or disconfinned, quite apart from any value judgment as to whether the change represents "success" or "failure." Thus one of the major barriers to scientific advance in this area has been removed. Another reason for whatever effectiveness the system has had in mediating research, is that the constructs have generality. Because psychotherapy is such a microcosmof significant interpersonal rehfionship, significant learning, and significant change in perception and in personality, the constructs developed to order the field have a high degree of pervasiveness. Such constructs as the serf-concept, or the need for positive regard, or the conditions of personality change, ali have application to a wide variety of humanactivities. Hencesuch constructs maybe used to study areas as widely variant as industrial or military leadership, personality change in psychotic individuals, the psychological climate of a family or a classroom, or the inter-rehtion of psychological and physiological change. One final fortunate circumstance deserves mention. Unlike psychoanalysis, for example, client-centered therapy has always existed in the context of a university setting. This means a continual process of sifting and winnowingof the truth from the chaff, in a situation of fundamental personal security. It means being exposed to the friendly criticism of coIleagues, in the same way that new views in chemistry or biology or genetics are subjected to critical scrutiny. Most of all it meansthat the theory and the technique are thrown open to the eager searching of younger minds. Graduate students question and probe; they suggest alternative formniadons; they undertake empiri- Client-Centered Tberapy in Context of Research 247 cal studies to confirm or to disprove the various theoretical hypotheses. This has helped greatly to keep the client-centered orientation an open and self-criticaL rather than a dogmatic, point of view. It is for reasons of this sort that client-centered therapy has built into itself from the first the process of change through research. From a limited viewpoint largely centered on technique, with no empirical verification, it has grownto a ramifying theory of personalit’ and interpersonal relations as well as of therapy, and it has collected around itself a considerable body of replicable empirical knowledge. THEEARLY PERIOD oF RESEARCH Objective investigations of psychotherapy do not have a long history. Up to 1940 there had been a few attempts to record therapeutic interviews electronieally, but no research use had been madeof such material. There had been no serious attempts to utilize the methods of science to measure the changes which were thought to occur in therapy. So we are speaking of a field which is still, relatively speaking, in its swaddling clothes. But a beginning has been made. Sometimein 1940 a group of us at Ohio State University succe~fully recorded a complete therapeutic interview. Our satisfaction was great, but it quickly faded. As we listened to this material, so formless, so complex, we almost despaired of fulfilling our purpose of using it as the data for research investigations. It seemed almost impossible to reduce it to elements which could be handled objectively. Yet progress was made. Enthusiasm and skill on the part of graduate students made up for the lack of funds and suitable equipment. The raw data of therapy was transformed by ingenious and creative thinking into crude categories of therapist techniques and equally crude categories of client responses. Porter analyzed the therapist’s behavior in significant ways. Snyder analyzed client responses in several cases, discovering some of the trends which existed. Others were equally creative, and little by little the possibility of research in this field becamea reality. 248 P~,~.~cHmPS’YCHO’mEaA~t These early studies were often unsophisticated, often faulty in research design, often based upon inadequate numbers, but their contribution as an opening wedge was nonetheless great. SOME I~USTRAT~W STUDmS In order to give some feeling for the steadily growing stream of research several studies will be described in sufficient detail to give some notion of their methodologyand their specific findings. The studies reported are not chosen because they are especially outstanding. They are representative of different trends in the research as it developed. They will be reported in chronological order. THELocus o~ EV.~UA~ON In 1949 Raskin (5) completed a study concerned with the perceived source of values, or the locus of the evaluating process. This started from the simple formulation that the task of the counselor was not to think for the client, or about the client, but ~itb the client. In the first two the locus of evaluation clearly resides in the counselor, but in the last the counselor is endeavoring to think and empathize with the client within the latter’s ownframe of reference, respecting the client’s ownvaluing process. The question Raskin raised was whether the client’s perceived locus of evaluation changed during therapy. Putting it more specifically, is there a decrease in the degree to which his values and standards depend upon the judgments and expectations of others, and an increase in the extent to which his values and standards are based upon a reliance upon his own experience? In order to study this objectively, Raskin undertook the following steps. 1. Three judges working independently were asked to select, in several recorded interviews, those statements which had to do with the source of the client’s values and standards. It was found that there was morethan 80 per cent agreement in the selection of such statements, indicating that the study was dealing with a discriminable construct. Client-Centered Therapy in Context of Research 249 2. Selecting 22 of these items to represent a wide range of source of values, Raskin gave these items to 20 judges, asking them to distribute these statements in four plies according to the continuum being studied, with equal-appearing intervals between the piles. Twelve of the items rated most consistendy were used to form and inustrate a scale of locus of evaluation, with values from 1.0 to 4.0. Step 1 represented an unqualified reliance on the evaluations made by others. Step 2 included those instances in which there was a predominantconcern with what others think, but somedissatisfaction with this state of dependence. Step 3 represented those expressions in which the individual showedas much respect for his own valuing process as for the values and expectations of others, and showedan awareness of the difference between serf-evaluation and dependenceon others’ values. Step 4 was reserved for those instances in which there was clear evidence of reliance upon one’s owa experience and judgment as the basic source of value~ Anexampleillustrating stage 3 maygive a more vivid picture of this scale. The following client statement was rated as belonging in this step of the scale. "So I’ve made a decision that I wonder if it is righ~ Whenyou’re in a family where your brother has gone to college and everybody has a good mind, I wonder if it is right to see that I am as I am and I can’t achieve such things. I’ve always tried to be what the others thought I should be, but now I’m wondering whether I shouldn’t just see that I am what I am." (6, p. 151). 3. Ruskin now used this scale to rate each of 59 interviews in ten brief but fully recorded cases which had been madethe subject of other research investigations. After he had made these rstings, but befcre analyzing them, he wished to determine the reliability of his judgments. Consequently he chose at randomone item relating to locus of evaluation from each of the 59 interviews, and had these rated independently by another judge whoknewnothing of the source of the item~ or whether they came from early or late interviews. The correlation betweenthe two sets of ratings was .91, a highly satisfactory reliability. 4. Having constructed a scale of equal-appearing intervals, and having demonstrated that it was a reliable instrument, Ruskin was 250 ll~sP.~c~ m I%n, cH~ nowready to determine whether there had been any shift in the locus of evaluation during therapy. The average score for the first interviews in the ten cases was 1.97, for the final interviews 2.73, a difference significant at the .01 level. Thus the theory of clientcentered therapy on this point was upheld. A further confirmation ° was available. These 10 cases had been studied in other objective ways, so that there were objective criteria from other studies as to which cases were more, and which less successful. If one takes the five eases judged as more suiiessful, the shift in locus of evaluation in these eases is even sharper, the average for the first interviews being 2.12, and for the final interviews 3.34. This study is, in a numberof respects, typical of a large group of the research investigations which have been made. Starting with one of the hypotheses of client-centered theory, an instrument is devised to measure varying degrees of the construct in question. The instrument is then itself put to the test to determine whether k does in fact measure what k purports to measure, and whether any qualified person can use it and obtain the same or similar results. The instrument is then applied to the data of therapy in a way which can be shown to be unbiassed. (In Raskin’s case the checking of 59 randomly selected items by another judge shows that bias, conscious or unconscious, did not enter appreciably into his ratings.) The data acquired from the use of the instrument can then be analyzed to determine whether it does or does not support the hypothesis. In this ease the hypothesis was upheld, confirming the theory that clients in client-ccntered therapy tend to decrease in the extent to which they rely for guidance upon the values and expectations of others, and that they tend to increase in reliance upon selfoevaluatinns based upon their own experiences. Although the number of eases studied is small, and the therapy very brief (as was characteristic of that earlier period) these are the only major flaws in this study. It is probable that if replicated on a larger number of longer eases the results would still be the same. It marks an intermediate level of research sophistication, somewhere between the very crude initial studies, and the more meticulously designed recent studies. Cllent-Centered Therapy in Context of Research 251 THgRELATION OFAUTONOMIC Fv~cnoN TOTHERAFY Thetford undertook a study of quite a different sort, also completed in 1949 (11). His hypothesis went well beyond the theory of client-centered therapy, predicting physiological consequences which were consistent with the theory, but which had never been formulated. Briefly his major hypothesis was that if therapy enables the individual to reorient his pattern of life and to reduce the tension and anxiety he feels regarding his personal problems, then the reactions of his automatic nervous system in, for example, a situation of stress, should also be altered. Essentially he was hypothesizing that if a change in life pattern and in internal tension occurred in therapy, this should show up in organismic changes in autonomic functioning, an area over which the individual has no conscious controL Essentially he was asking, Howdeep are the changes wrought by client-centered therapy? Are they deep enough to affect the total organismic functioning of the individual.: Although his procedure was decidedly complex, it can be described simply enough in its essentials. A therapy group of nineteen individuals was recruited, composedof clients comingto the Counseling Center of the University of Clficago for personal help. They were invited to volunteer for a research in personality. Since all whowere invited participated, except a few who could not arrange testing appointments, this was a representative group of student clients from the Center. Ten indMduals went into individual therapy, three into individual and group therapy conenrrently, and six into group therapy. A control group of seventeen individuals not in therapy was recruited, roughly similar in age and educational status to the therapy group. Every individual, whether therapy or control, went through the same experhnental procedure. The most significant aspects were these. The individual was connected by suitable electrodes to a polygraph which recorded his palmar skin conductance (GSR), heart rate, and respiration. After a rest period to establish a base line, the individual was told that memoryfor digits was a good 2~ index of intelligance, and that the experimenter wished to test him for this. The series of digits used was increased in length until the individual clearly failed. After a two minute rest, another series was used to bring another clear failure. After another rest, there was another frustrating failure. Since these were all students, the~ ego-involvement and the frustration were clearly real since the experience seemedto cast doubt on their inteUectual ability. After another rest period the individual was released, but informed that he would be called hack at a later time. At no time was there any hint that the experiment had anything to do with the individual’s therapy, and the testing was carried on in another building. Following the completion of therapy the clients were recalled and went through the same experimental procedure -- three episodes of frustration and recovery, with continuous autonomicmeasurements being made. At matched time intervals, the controls were also recalled and put through an identical procedure. Various physiological indices were computedfor the therapy and control groups. The only significant differences between the groups were differences in the rapidity of recovery from frustration on the pre as compared with the post test. In general it maybe said that the group which had therapy recovered from its frustration more quickly on the post-test than on the pretest, while for the control group the results were the reverse. They recovered more slowly at the time of the second series of frustrations. Let me makethis more specific. The therapy group showed a change in the "recovery quotient" based on the GSRwhich was significant at the .02 level of confidence, and which was in the direction of more rapid recovery from frustration. The control group showeda change in the "recovery quotient" which was significant at the 10 per cent level, and was in the direction of a slower recovery. In other words they were less able to cope with the frustration during the post-test than during the pre-test. Another GSRmeasure, "per cent of recovery," again showedthe therapy group makinga more rapid recovery at the second test, a change significant at the 5 per cent level, while the control group showedno change. As to cardiovascular activity the therapy group, on the average, showedless heart-rate variation at the time of the Cl~nt-Centered Therapy in Context of Researcb 253 post-test frustration, a change significant at the 5 per cent level. The control group showed no change. Other indices showed changes consistent with those mentioned, hut not as significant. In general it may be said that the individuals who had experienced therapy developed a higher frustration threshold during their series of therapeutic contacts, and were able to recover their homeOstatic balance more rapidly following frustration. In the control group, on the other hand, there was a slight tendency toward a lower threshold for the second frustration, and a definitely less rapid recovery of homeostasis. In simple terms, the significance of this study appears to be that after therapy the individual is able to meet, with moretolerance and less disturbance, situations of emotional stress and frustration; that this description holds, even though the particular frustration or stress was never considered in therapy; that the more effective meeting of frustration is not a surface phenomenonbut is evident in autonomic reactions which the individual cannot consciously control and of which he is completely unaware. This study of Thetford’s is characteristic of a number of the more pioneering and challenging of those which have been carried on. It went beyond client-centered theory as it had been formulated, and madea prediction consistent with the theory, and perhaps implicit in it, but well beyond the limits of the theory, as it stood. Thus it predicted that if therapy enabled the individual better to handle stress at the psychological level, then this should be evident also in his autonomic functioning. The actual research was the testing of the correctness of the prediction. There is no doubt that the confirming effect on the theory is somewhatgreater whenrather remote predictions are tested and found to be correct. CLIENT RESPONSE TO DIFFERING TECHNIQUES A small study completed by Bergman(2) in 1950 is an example of the way in which recorded interviews lend themselves to microscopic studies of the therapeutic proceSS. He wished to study the question, Whatis the nature of the relationship bet~’een the counselor’s methodor technique and the client’s response? He chose tu study all the instance* in ten recorded cases (tho 254 P.zo.~cn m PsYc~oxtre~r same cases studied by" Raskin and others) in which the client requested an evaluation from the counselor. There were 246 such instances in the ten cases, in which the client requested some solution for his problems, or an evaluation of his adjustment or progress, ~or a confirmation of his own view, or a suggestion as to how he should proceed. Each of these instances was included in the study as a response unit. The response unit consisted of the total client statement which included the request, the immediately following response by the counselor, and the total client expression which fullowed the counselor statement Bergmanfound that the counselor responses to these requests could be categorized in the following ways. I. An evaluation-based response. This might be an interpretation of the client material, agreement or disagreement with the client, or the giving of suggestions or information. 2. A "structuring" response. The counselor might explain his ownrole, or the way in which therapy operates. 3. A request for clarification. The counselor might indicate that the meaningof the client’s request is not clear to him. 4. A reflection of the context of the request. The counselor might respond by trying to understand the client material encompassing the request, but with no recognition of the request itself. 5. A reflection of the request. The counselor might endeavor to understand the client’s request, or the client’s request in a context of other feelings. Bergrnan developed the following categories to contain the client expression subsequent to the counselor response. 1. Client again presents a request for evaluation, either a repetition of the same request or some enlargement or modification of it, or another request. 2. Client, whether accepting or rejecting the counselor response, abandons the attempt to explore his attitudes and problems (usuaLly going off into other less relevant material.) 3. Client continues to explore his attitudes and problems. 4. Client verbalizes an understanding of relatiomhips between feelings -- expresses an insight. Client-Centered Therapy in Conte~t of Researcb 255 Having checked the reliability of this categorization of both client and counselor material and having found it satisfacto~, Bergmanproceeded to analyze his data. He determined which categories occurred in conjunction with other categories more frequently than could be accounted for by chance. Someof the significant findings are these. There was essentially only a chance relationship between the categories of initial client request and subsequent client response. The same was true of initial client request and counselor response. Thus neither the counselor’s response nor the client’s subsequent expression seemedto be "caused" by the initial request. On the other hand there was significant interaction found between the counselor’s response and the client’s subsequent expression. 1. Reflection of feeling by the counselor is followed, more often than would be expected by chance, by continued self-exploration or insight. This relationship is significant at the I per cent level. 2. Counselor responses of types 1 and 2 (evaluation-based and interpretive responses or "structuring" responses) are followed, more often than would be expected by chance, by abandonment of self-exploration. This too is significant at the 1 per cent level 3. A counselor response requesting clarification tends to be followed by repetition of the request, or by a decrease in self-exploration and insight. These consequences are significant at the 1 per cent and 5 per cent level, respectively. Thus Bergmanconcludes that self-exploration and insight, positive aspects of the therapeutic process, appear to be furthered primarily by responses which are "reflections of feeling," while evaluative, interpretive, and "structuring" responses tend to foster client reactions which are negative for the process of therapy. This study is an illustration of the way in which, in a number of investigations, the verbal recording of therapeutic interviews has been examinedin a very minute and molecular way, in order to cast light upon someaspect of client-centered theo~’. In these studies the internal events of therapy have been examinedobjectively for the light they can throw upon the process. I~.~.ARCH m PsY~ A STUDY Or T~ES~r-CoNcr~r Manyinvestigations have been madeof the changes in the client’s concept of self, a construct which is cenr~ to the client-centered theory of therapy and personality. One, a study by Butler and = Haigb (3), will be briefly reported here. A method which has frequendy been used for this purpose is the Q-technique developed by Stephenaon (10), and adapted for the study of the self. Since an instrument based on this technique is used in the Butler and Halgh study, it maybe simply described before giving the findings of the study kself. Froma numberof recorded counseling cases a large population of all the self-referent statements was gleaned. Fromthis a selection of 100 statements was made, and the statements edited for the sake of clarity. The aim was to select the widest possible range of ways in which the individual could perceive himself. The list included such items as: "I often feel resentful"; "I am sexually attractive"; "I really am disturbed"; "I feel uncomfortable while talking with someone"; "I feel relaxed and nothing really bothers me." In the Butler and Haigh study each person was asked to sort the cards containing the 100 items. First he was to "Sort these cards to describe yourself as you see yourself today." He was asked to sort the cards into nine plies, from those most unlike him, to those most like him. He was asked to place a certain numberin each pile. (The numbers in each pile were 1, 4, 11, 21, 26, 21, 11, 4, 1, thus giving a forced and approximately normal, distribution.) When he had completed this sort he was asked to sort the cards once more "to describe the person you would most like within yourself to be." Tl~ meant that for each item one would obtain the individual’s self-perception, and also the value he attached to this characteristic. It will be evident that the various sorrings can be correlated. One can correlate the self pre-therapy with the self pust-therapy, or the self with the ideal self, or the ideal self of one client with the ideal of another. High correlations indicate little discrepancy or change, low correhfious the reverse. Study of the specific items which have been changed in their placement over therapy, for example, gives a qualitative picture of the nature of the change. Be- Client-Centered Therapy in Context of Research 2S7 cause of the large population of items there is less loss of clinical richness in the statistical investigation. By and large this procedure has enabled investigators to turn subtle phenomenological perceptions into objective and manipulable data. Let us turn to the use madeof the Q-sort of self items in the Butler and Haigh study. The hypotheses were: (1) that clientcentered therapy results in a decrease in the discrepancy between the perceived self and the valued self; and (2) that this decrease in discrepancy will be more marked in clients who have been judged, on the basis of independent criteria, as having exhibited more movement in therapy. /Ls part of a muchmore comprehensivetotal programof research (8) the Q-sort for self and for ideal self was given to 25 clients before therapy started, after the conclusion of therapy, and at a follow-up point six to twelve months after the conclusion of therapy. The same program of testing was followed in a nontherapy control group matchedfor age, sex and soeio-economic status. The findings are of interesL The self-ideal correlations in the client group before therapy ranged from -.47, a very marked discrepancy between self and ideal, to .59, indicating that the self is quite highly valued as it is. The meancorrelation at pre-therapy was -.01. At the conclusion of therapy the meanwas .34, and at the follow-up point it was .31. This represents a highly significant change, supporting the hypothesis. It is of special interest that the correlation decreases only very slightly during the follow-up period. Whenattention is directed to the 17 cases who on the basis of counselor ratings and change on the ThematicApperception Test had shownthe most definite improvementin therapy, the change is even sharper. Here the meanat pre-therapy was .02, at follow-up time, .44. Fifteen membersof the group constituted an "own-control" group. They had been tested when they first requested help, then asked to wait for 60 days before beginning therapy. They were re-tested at the end of the 60-day period, as well as at the post-therap)" and follow-up times. In this group of fifteen the self-ideal correlation at the first test was -.01 and at the end of the 60-day period it was identical -.01. Thus the change which occurred during therapy 255 B.E.S~.A~C~ m PSYC.~ is clearly assochted ~/tb therapy, and does not result simply from the passage of time, or from a determination to obtain help. The control group showeda very different picture from the therapy clients. The initial correhtion of self and ideal was .58, and this did not change, being .59 at the follow-up point. Obviously this group did not feel the tension felt by the client group, tended to value themselves, and did not change appreciably in this respect. It is reasonable to conclude from this study that one of the changes associated with client-centered therapy is that serf-perception is altered in a direction which makes the self morehighly valued. This change is not a transient one, but persists after therapy. This decrease in internal tension is a highly significant one, bur even at the end of therapy the self is somewhatless valued than is found to be the case in a non-therapy control group. (Therapy, in other words, has not brought about "perfect adinsunent," or a complete absence of tension.) It is also clear that the changes under discussion have not occurred simply as a result of the passage of time, nor as the result of a decision to seek help. They are definitely associated with the therapy. This study is an example of manywhich have thrown light on the rehtionship of therapy to self-perception. Fromother studies (reported in Rogers and Dymond(8)) we know that it is primarily. the self-concept which changes in therapy, not the ideal self. The latter tends to change but slightly, and its change is in the direction of becominga less demanding,or more achievable self. Weknow that the self-picture emerging at the end of therapy is rated by’ clinicians (in a manner which excludes possible bias) as being better adjusted. Weknowthat this emerging self has a greater degree of inner comfort, of self-understanding and self-acceptance, of selfresponsibility. Weknowthat this post-therapy self finds greater satisfactinn and comfort in rehtionships with others. Thus bit by bit we have been able to add to our obiective knowledgeof the changes wrought by therapy in the client’s perceived self. DogspSYCHOTHERAPY BRIN(;CHANGE IN EVERYDAY BEHAVIOR~ The studies described thus far in this chapter, and others which might ha cited, provide evidence that client-centered therapy brings Cllont-Centered Therapy m Context of Research 259 manychanges. The individual makes choices and establishes values differently; he meets frustration with less prolonged physiological tension, he changes in the way he perceives himself and values himself. But this still leaves unanswered the question of practical concem to the laymanand to society, "Does the client’s everyday behavior change in such a way that the changes can he observed, and is the nature of these changes positive?" It was to try to answer this question that I, with the help of colleagues, undertook an investigation of changes in the maturity of the client’s behavior as related to therapy, a study published in 1954 (6). The theory of client-centered therapy hypothesizes that the inner changes taking place in therapy will cause the individual after therapy to behave in ways which are less defensive, more socialized, more acceptant of reafity in himself and in his social environment, and which give evidence of a more socialized system of valuex He wilL, in short, behave in ways which are regarded as moremature, and infantile waysof behavingwill tend to decrease. The diffictdt question to which we addressed ourselves was whether an operational definition could be given to such a hypothesis in order to put it to empirical test. There are few instruments which even purport to measure the quality of one’s everyday behavior. The best for our purposes was that developed by Willoughby a number of years ago, and termed the Emotional Maturity Scale. He constructed many items descriptive of behavior and had them rated by 100 clinical workers-psychologists and psychiatrists- as to the degree of maturity they represented. On the basis of these iudgments he selected 60 items to composehis Scale. The scores range from 1 (most immature) to 9 (most mature). Several of the items, and their score values, are listed belowto give the reader somethingof the flavor of the Scale. Score Item 1. S (subiect) characteristically appeals for help in the solution his problems (Item 9). 3. Whendriving an automobile, S is unperturbed in ordinary situations but becomesangry with other drivers whoimpedehis progress (Item 12). 260 ~CH m P~’cHo’r~zz~t $. On unmistakable demonstration of his inferiority in somerespect, S is impressed but consoles himself by the contemplation of those activities in which he is superior (Item 45). 7. S organizes and orders his efforts in pursuing his objective, evidently regarding systematic method as a means of achieving them (Item 17). 9. S welcomeslegitimate opportunities for sexual expression; is not ashamed, fearful, or preoccupied with the topic (Item 53). Having selected our instrument we were able m state our hypothesis in operational form: Following the completion of cfientcentered therapy, the behavior of the client will be rated, by himself and by others whoknowhim well, as being more mature, as evidenced by a higher score on the E-MScale. The method of the study was necessarily complex, since accurate and reliable measurementsof everyday behavior are diflScult to obtaim The study was madeas a part of a larger programof investigstion of nearly thirty cfients and an equal group of matched controls (8). The various steps were as follows 1. The client, prior to therapy, was asked to makea self-evaluation of his behavior on the E-MScal~ 2. The client was asked for the namesof two friends whoknew him well and whowould be willing to makeratings of him. The contact with these friends was by mail, and their ratings on the E-MScale were mailed directly to the Counseling Center. 3. Each friend was requested to rate, at the same time that he rated the client, one other person well knownto ~ The purpose of this was to determine the reliability of the friend’s ratings. 4. That half of the therapy group which had been designated as the own-control group, filled out the E-MScale whenfirst requesting help and again, sixty clays later, before therapy began. Ratings of the client by his two friends were also obtained at each of these times. 5. At the conclusion of therapy the client and his two friends were again requested for a rating on the E-MScale. 6. Six to twelve months following the conclusion of therapy rat- Client-Centered Therapy in Context of Research 261 ings of his behavior were again obtained from the client and his friends. 7. The membersof the matchedcontrol group rated their behavior on the E--MScale at each of the points from which such ratings were obtained from the therapy group. This design assembled a large body of data permitting analy~ from various angles. Only the major findings will be reported here. The E-Mscale proved to have satisfactory reliability whenused by any one rater, whether the client or an observer-friend. However the agreement between the different raters was not close. The individuals in the matched non-therapy control group showedno significant change in their behavior ratings during any of the periods involved in the study. The clients who were membersof the own-contrnl group showed no significant behavioral change during the sixtyMay waiting period, whether judged by their own ratings or that of their friends. There was no significant change in the observer’s ratings of the client’s behavior over the period of therapy or the combined period of therapy and follow-up. This was, of course, contrary to our hypothesis. It seemeddesirable to determine whether this negative finding held for all clients regardless of the movementthey appeared to makein therapy. Consequrndythe clieot~ were divided into those rated by counselors as showing most, moderate, or least movement in therapy. It was found that for those rated as showing the most movement in therapy, the friend’s ratings of the client’s maturity of behavior increased significantly (5 per cent level). In the group showing moderate movementthere was little change, and in the group showing least movementthere was a negative change, in the direction of less mature behavior. There was a definite and significant correlation between the therapist’s ratings of movementin therapy, and the friends’ observations of change in eve .ryday behavior. This correlation is particularly interesting because the therapist’s judgment was based solely on client reactions in the therapy hour, with little or no knowl- 262 ~a-~ ~ Ps~z~ edge of outside behavior. The friends’ ratings were based solely on outside observation, with no knowiedgeof what was going on in therapy. In general these findings were paralleled by the clients’ ratings of their ownbehavior, with one interesting exception. Those clients who were rated by their counselors as showing movementin therapy rated themselves as showing an increase in maturity, the ratings being almost identical ~th those madeby the observers. But those clients who were rated by the counselors as being least successful in therapy, and who were rated by observers as showing a deterioration in the maturity of behavior, described themselves in ways that gave them a sharp increase in maturity score both at the post-therapy and follow-up points. This seems to be clear evidence of a defensive serf-rating whentherapy has not gone well. In general then the conclusion appears justified that where clientcentered therapy has been iudged to show progress or movement, there is a significant observable change in the client’s everyday behavior in the direction of greater maturity. Wherethe therapist feels that there has been lit’de or no movementin therapy, then some deterioration in behavior is observed, in the direction of greater immaturity. This last finding is of particular interest because it is the first evidence that disintegrative consequences may accompany unsuccessful efforts to obtain help in a relationship with a clientcentered therapist. While these negative consequencesare not great, they nevertheless warrant further study. This research illustrates the efforts madeto investigate various behavioral results of psychotherapy. It also suggests some of the many difficulties involved in planning a sufficiendy rigorous design such that one can be sure that (a) behavioral changes did fact occur, and (b) that such changes are a consequence of the therapy and not of some other factor. Having madethis global study of everyday behavior changes, it seems possible that further research on this topic might better be carried on in the laboratory, where changes in problem-solving behavior, adaptive behavior, response to threat or frustration, etc., might be carried on under better-controlled conditions. The reported study is however a pioneering one in indicating both that Cliont-Centered Therapy in Context of Researcb 263 successful therapy produces positive behavioral change, and that unsuccessful therapy can produce negative changes in behavior. THEQUALITY OFTHETHERAPEUTIC RELATIONSHIP ASRELATED TOMOVEMENT IN THERAPY The final study I wish to report is one recently completed by Barrett-Lennard (1). He started from the theoretical formulation of mine regarding the necessary conditions for therapeutic change. He hypothesized that if five attitudinal conditions were present irt the relationship, therapeutic change would occur in the clien~ To investigate this problemhe developed a Relationship Inventory which had different forms for client and therapist, and which was designed to study five dimensions of the relationship. Thus far he has analyzed only the data from the client perceptions of the rehtionship, and it is these findings which I shall report In a fresh series of cases, in which he knewthat he would have various objective measures of degree of change, Barrett-Lennard gave his Relationship Inventory to each client after the fifth interview. In order to give more of the flavor of his study, I will give several of the items regarding each variable. He was interested, for example, in measuring the extent to which the client felt himself to be empathically understood. So he included items such as these regarding the therapist, to be rated by the client on a six-point scale from very true to very strongly not true. It will be evident that these represent different degrees of empathic understanding. He appreciates what my experience feels like to me. He tries to see things thru my eyes. Sometimes he thinks that I feel a certain way because he feels that way. He understands what I say from a detached, obiecdve point of view. He understands mywords but not the way I feeL A second element he wished to measure was the level of regard, the degree of liking of the client by the therapist. To measure this Rzs~aenm Psxen~ 264 there were items like the following, each one again rated from strongly true, to strongly not true. He c~res about me. He is interested in me. He is curious about ’~vhat makesme tick," but not really interested in me as a person. He is indifferent to me. He disapproves of me. To measure the tmconditionality of the regard, the extent m which there were "no strings attached" to the counselor’s liking, items of this sort were included. WhetherI am expressing "good" feelings or "bad" ones seems to makeno difference to the way he feels toward me. Sometimeshe responds to mein a more positive and friendly way than he does at other times. His interest in me depends on what I am talking to him about. In order to measure the congruence or genuineness of the therapist in the relationship, items of this sort were used. He behaves iust the way that he is, in our relationship. He pretends that he likes me or understands me more than he really does. There are times when his outward response is quite different from his inner reaction to me. He is phying a role with me. Barrett-Lennard also wished to measure another variable which he regarded as important--the counselor’s psychological availability., or willingness to be known.To measure this, items of this sort were used. He will freely tell me his own thoughts and feelings, when I want to knowthem. He is uncomfortable whenI ask him something about himself. He is unwilling to tell me howhe feels about me. Client-Centered Tberapy in Context of Researcb 261 Someof his findings are of interest. The more experienced of his therapists were perceived as having more of the first four qualities than the less experienced therapists. In "willingness to be known," however, the reverse was ’~’tle. In the more disturbed clients in his sample, the first four measures all correlated significandy with the degree of personality change as objectively measured, and with the degree of change as rated by the therapi~ Empathic understanding was most signifieandy associated with change, but genuineness, level of regard, and uneonditionality of regard were also associated with successful therapy. Willingness to be known was not signifieandy associated. Thus we can say, with some assurance, that a relationship characterized by a high degree of congruenceor genuineness in the therapist; by a sensitive and accurate empathy on the part of the therapist; by a high degree of regard, respect, liking for the client by the therapist; and by an absence of conditionality in this regard, will have a high probability of being an effective therapeutic relationship. These qualities appear to be primary change-producing influences on personality and behavior. It seems clear from this and other studies that these qualities can be measured or observed in small samples of the interaction, relatively early in the relationship, and yet can predict the outcome of that relationship. This study is an example of recent workwhich puts to test ever more subtle aspects of the theory of client-centered therapy. It is to be noted that this study does not deal with matters of technique or conceptualizations. It cuts through to intangible attitudinal and experiential qualities. Research in psychotherapy has, in my judgment, comea long way to be able to investigate such intangibles. The positive evidence in regard to four of the variables, and the lack of positive evidence in regard to the fifth variable, is to me an indication that helpful and discriminative findings may comefrom studies carried on at this level. It is of more than passing interest that the relationship qualities associated with progress in therapy are all attitudinal qualities. While it may be that degree of professional knowledge, or skills and techniques will also be found to be associated with change, this study raises the challenging possibility that certain attitudinal and experi- 266 R~sr~cu m P~CUo’r~.LL,~ ential qualities by themselves, regardless of intellectual knowledge or medical or psychological training, mayhe sufficient to stimulate a positive therapeutic process. This investigation is a pioneering one in still another respec~ It is one of the first explicitly designed to study the causative or changeproducing elements of psychotherapy. In this respect theory has advanced sufficiently, and methodological sophistication as well, that we may look forward to an increasing number of invesrigadons into the dynamics of personality change. Wemayin time be able to distinguish and measure the conditions which cause and produce constructive change in personality and behavior. So~e~z C~z~rr P~sEAnce Investigations relating to psychotherapy are burgeoning in the United States. Even the psychoanalytic group is embarking on several objective studies of the process of analytic therapy. It would be quite impossible to review what is going on today, since the picture is so complex, and so rapidly changing. I shall limit myself to very brief sketches of several research projects and programs related to client-centered therapy of which I have personal knowledge. A study is going on at the University of Chicago under the direction of Dr. John Shlien to investigate the changes which occur in brief time-limited therapy, and to comparethese changes with those which occur in the usual unlimited therapy. Clients are offered a definite number of interviews (twenty in most instances, forty in some) and therapy is concluded at the end of this time. Both the way in which individuals are able to use time, and the possibility of shortening the therapy period, are of interest to the investigators. This program should be completed in the not-too-distant future. A study which is closely related is an investigation of short-term Adlerian therapy. With the active cooperation of Dr. Rudolph Dreikurs and his colleagues, Dr. Shlien is carrying on a study of Adlerian therapy exactly parallel to the above. If all goes well with the program it will meanthat a direct comparison can be made of Client-Centered Therapy in Context of Research 267 two sharply divergent therapies--Adlerian and client-centered-in which the samepre-tests and post-tests will have been administered, the therapy will be identical in length, and all interviews will have been recorded. This will indeed be a milestone, and should greatly expand our knowledgeof the commonand divergent dements in different forms of therapy. Another study at the University of Chicago is being carried on by Dr. DesmondCartwright, DonaldFiske, ~Villiam Kirtner, and others. It is attempting to investigate, on a very broad basis indeed, a great manyof the factors which maybe associated with therapeutic change. It is casting a broad net to investigate manyelements not previously considered which maybe related to progress or lack of progress in therapy. At the University of Wisconsin, Dr. Robert Roessler, Dr. Norman Greenfield, Dr. Jerome Berlin and I have embarkedupon a ramified group of studies which it is hoped will, amongother things, throw light on the autonomic and physiological correlates of clientcentered therapy. In one portion of the investigation continuous recordings of GSR,skin temperature, and heart rate axe being made on clients during the therapy hour. The comparison of these with the recorded interviews will perhaps give more information as to the fundamental physiological-psychological nature of the process of personality change. A smaller project in which several individuals are at work involves the objective study of the process of psychotherapy. In a recent paper (7) I formulated a theoretical picture, based upon observation, of the irregularly sequential stages in the process of psychotherapy. Weare currently at work translating this theoretical description into an operational scale which maybe used to study recorded therapeutic interviews. Currently studies having to do with the reliability and validity of this scale are being carried on. Still another program at the University of Wisconsin in which Dr. EugeneGendlin and I are the principal investigators, concerns itself with a comparison of the process of psychotherapy in schizophrenic patients (both chronic and acute) with that in normal individuals. Each therapist in the study wilt take on three clients at a time, matched for age, sex, socio-educational status -- one chronic 268 schizophrenic, one acute schizophrenic, and one person of "normal" adjustment from the community.With a variety of pre-tests and post-tests, and a recording of all interviews, it is hoped that this study will have many findings of interest. It pushes the testing of clientcentered hypotheses into a new field, that of the hospitalized psychotic person. Part of the fundamental hypothesis of the study is that given the necessary conditions of therapy (somewhat as defined in the Barrett-Lennard study) the process of change will be found to be the same in the schizophrenic person as in the normal Perhaps these brief descriptions are sufficient to indicate that the body of objective investigation stimulated by the practice and theory of client-centered therapy is continuing to growand ramify. THE MF.A~n~G OF R~EARC~ FOR THE FUTURE In concluding this chapter I would like to commenton the question "Wheredoes this lead? To what end is all this research?" Its major significance, it seems to me, is that a growing body of objectively verified knowledge of psychotherapy will bring about the gradual demise of "schools" of psychotherapy, including this one. As solid knowledgeincreases as to the conditions which facilitate therapeutic change, the nature of the therapeutic process, the conditions which block or inhibit therapy, the characteristic outcomesof therapy in terms of personality or behavioral change, then there will be less and less emphasis upon dogmatic and purely theoretical formulations. Differences of opinion, different procedures in therapy, differem judgments as to outcome, will be put to empirical test rather than being simply a matter of debate or argument. In medicine today we do not find a "penicillin school of treatment" versus some other school of treatment. There are differences of judgment and opinion, to be sure, but there is confidence that these will be resolved in the foreseeable future by carefully designed research. Just so I believe will psychotherapy turn increasingly to the facts rather than to dogmaas an arbiter of differences. Out of this should growan increasingly effective, and continually changing psychotherapy which will neither have nor need any Cllent-Centered Therapy in Context of Research 269 specific label. It will have incorporated whatever is factually verified from any and every therapeutic orientation. Perhaps I should close here, but I would like to say one further wordto those whomayabhor research in such a delicately personal and intangible field as psychotherapy. They may feel that to subiect such an intimate relationship to objective scrutiny is somehowto depersonalize it, to rob it of its most essential qualities, to reduce it to a cold system of facts. I would simply like to point out that to date this has not been its effect. Rather the contrary has been true. The moreextensive the research the moreit has becomeevident that the significant changes in the client have to do with very subde and subiective experiences--inner choices, greater oneness within the whole person, a different feeling about one’s self. And in the therapist some of the recent studies suggest that a warmly humanand genuine therapist, interested only in understanding the moment-bymomentfeelings of this person whois cominginto being in the rehdonship with him, is the most effective therapist. Certainly there is nothing to indicate that the coldly intellectual analytical factuallyminded therapist is effective. It seems to be one of the paradoxes of psychotherapy that to advance in our understanding of the field the individual must be willing to put his most passionate beliefs and firm convictions to the impersonal test of empirical research; but to be effective as a therapist, he must use this knowledgeonly to enrich and enlarge his subjective self, and must be that self, freely and without fear, in his rehtiouship to his client. REFERENCES 1. Barrett-Lermard, G. T. Dimensionsof the client’s experience of his therapist associated with personality change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Chicago, 1959. 27O Rr~.AnCH D~PSYCHOT~ 2. Bergnsan, D. V. Counseling method and client responses. ]. Consu/t. PsychoL1951, 15, 216-224. 3. Butler, J. M., and G. V. Halgh. Changesin the relation between self-cuncepts and ideal concepts consequent upon client-centered counseling. In C. R. Rogers and Rosalind F. Dymund(Eds.). Psy-= chotherapy and Personality Change. UniversiWof Chicago Press, 1954, pp. 55-75. 4. Cartwriglit, DesmundS. Annotated bibliography of research and theory construction in cllent-centered therapy. ]. of Counsel. Psycbol. 1957, 4, 82-100. $. Raskin, N. J. An objective study of the locns-of-evaluatlon factor in psychotherapy. In W. Wolff, and J. A. Precker (Eds.). Success in Psychotherapy. NewYork: Grune & Stratrtah 1952, Chap. 6. 6. Rogers, C. 11. Changesin the maturity of behavior as related to therapy. In C. R. Rogers, and Rosalind F. Dymond (Eds.). Psychotherapy and Personality Change. University of Chicago Press, 1954, pp. 215-237. 7. Rogers, C. R. A process conception of psychotherapy. Amer. PsychoL, 1958,13, 142-149. 8. Rogers, C. 1/. and Dymund,R. F. (Eds.). Psychotherapy and Personality Change. University of Chicago Press, 1954, 447 p. 9. Seeman,J., and N. J. Raskin. Research perspectives in orient centered therapy. In O. H. Mowrer(Ed.). Psychotherapy: theory and research, NewYork: Ronald, 1953, pp. 205-234. 10. Stephenson, W. The Study of Behavior. University of Chicago Press, 1953. I1. Thetford, William N., An obiective measurementof frustration tolerance in evaluating psychotherapy. In W. ~,Volff, and J. A. Precker (Eds.). Success in Psychotherapy, NewYork: Grune & Sr.ratton, 1952, Chapter 2. PART VI What Are the Implications for Living? I have found the experience of therapy to have meaningful and sometimes profound implications for education, for interpersonal communication, for family living, for the creative process. 13 Personal Thoughts on Teaching and Learning Tbis is tbe shortest chapter in the book but if my experience ~qtb it is any criterion, it is also tbe most explosive. It has a (to me) amusing history. l bad agreed, months in advance, to meet v:itb a conference organized by Harvard University on "Classroom Approacbesto Influencing HumanBehavior." l ~vas requested to put on a demonstration of "student-centered teacbing"--teacbing based upon therapeutic principles as l bad been endeavoringto apply tbern in education, l felt that to use t~vo bouts ,,z’itb a sopbisticated group to try help to them formulate their o~’n purposes, and to respond to their feelings as tbey did so, w.ould be bigbly artificial and unsatisfactory. 1 did not kno~ v:bat 1 would do or present. At this juncture l took off for Mexico on one of our ~qnterquarter trips, did some painting, w-titing, and pbotograpby, and im¯ nersed myself in the varitings of S#ren Kierkegaard. I amsure that his bonest v;illingness to call a spade a spade influenced me moretban I realized. As the time came near to return I bad to face up to my obligation. I recalled that I bad sometimes been able to initiate very meaningful class discussions by expressing some bigbly personal opinion of my own, and then endeavoringto understand and accept tbe often very 273 274 Wx~T A~ THEIMI’UCATIONS ~ Ln, m~ divergent reactions and feelings of the students. This seamed a sen* sible way of handling my Harvardassignment. So I sat downto write, as honestly as I could, what my experiences had been .with teaching, as this term is defined in the diction. aries, and likewise my experience with learning. I was far away from psychologists, educators, cautious colleagues, l simply put down what I felt, ~ith assurance that if I had not got it correctly, the discussion ~oould help to set me on the right track. I may have been naive, but I did not consider the material inflammatory. After all the conference memberswere knowledgeable, self. critical teachers, whose main commonbond was an interest in the discussion method in the classroom. I met with the conference, 1 presented my ~ie~s as ~tten out below, taking only a very few moments, and thre~ the meeting open for discussion. I was hoping for a response, but I did not expect the tumult which followed. Feelings ran high. It seemed ! ¢ms threatening their ~obs, I was obviously saying things I did~t mean, etc., etc. And occasionally a quiet voice of appreciation arose from a teacher who had felt these things but never dared to say them. I daresay that not one memberof the group remamberedthat this meeting was billed as a demonstration of student-centered teaching. But I hope that in looking back each realized that he had lived an experience of student-cemered teaching, l refused to defend myself by replying to the questions and attacks which camefrom every quarter, l endeavored to accept and empathize ,with the indignation, the [rustration, the criticisms which they felt. I pointed out that I had merely expressed some very personal views of my o~n. ! had not asked nor expected others to agree. After muchstorm, nsembers of the group began expressing, more and more frankly, their own significant feelings about teaching p often feelings divergent from mine, often feelings divergent from each other. It was a ,very thought-provoking session, l question whether any participant in that session has ever forgotten is. The most meaningful commentcamefrom one of the conference membersthe next morning as I was preparing to leave the city. All be said was, "You kept more people awake last nightl" Personal Thoughts on Teaching and Learning 275 1 took no steps to have this small fragment published. My views on psychotherapybad already mademe a "controversial figure" amongpsychologists and psychiatrists, I had no desire to add educacators to the list. The statement was widely duplicated howeverby membersof the conference and several years later two journals requested permission to publish it. After this lengthy historical build-up, you may find the statement itself a let-doyen. Personally I have never felt it to be incendiary. It still expresses some of my deepest views in the field of education. I ~VISH PRESENT very brief in get the some hope new that fight if they bringTOforth anysome reaction from remarks, yoU, I may on my ownideas. I find it a very troubling thing to think, particularly whenI think about my ownexperiences and try to ex~act from those experiences the meaningthat seems genuinely inherent in them. At first, such thinking is vary satisfying, because it seems to discover sense and pattern in a whole host of discrete eventx But then it very often becomes dismaying, because I realize how ridiculous these thoughts, which have muchvalue to me, would seem to most people. Myimpression is that if I try to find the meaning of my own experience it leads me, nearly always, in directions regarded as absurd. So in the next three or four minutes, I will try to digest some of the meanings which have cometo me from my classroom experience and the experience I have had in individual and group therapy. They are in no way intended as conclusions for some one else, or a guide to what others should do or be. They are the very. tentative meanings, as of April 1952, which my experience has had for me, and some of the bothersome questions which their absurdity raises. I will put each idea or meaningin a separate lettered para~aph, not because they are in any particular logical order, but because each meaning is separately important to me. a. I mayas well start with this one in view of the purposes of this Wm~T Pare arm lavtm~teAano~ ~oa Llrma? conference. Myexperience has been that I cannot teach another person bo,w to teach. To attempt it is for me, in the long run, futile. b. It seems to me that anything that can be taught to another is relatively inconsequential, and has little or no significant influence on bebavlor. That sounds so ridiculous I can’t help but question it at the same time that I present it. e. I realize increasingly that I am only interested in learnings ¢vbicb signfwantly influence behavior. Quite possibly this is simply a personal idiosyncrasy. d. I have cometo feel that the only learning which significantly influences behavior is self-discovered, self-appropriated learning. e. Such self-discovered learning, truth that has been personally appropriated and assimilated in experience, cannot be directly aomnmnicated to another. As soon as an individual tries to communicate such experience directly, often with a quite natural enthusiasm, it becomes teaching, and its results are inconsequential. It was some relief recently to discover that S¢~ren Kierkegaard, the Danish philosopher, had found this too, in his own experience, and stated it very dearly a century ago. It madeit seem less absurd. f. As a consequence of the above, I realize that I ba~e lost interest in being a teacher. g. WhenI try to teach, as I do sometimes, I am appalled by the results, which seem a little more than inconsequential, because sometimes the teaching appears to succeed. Whenthis happens I find that the results are damaging. It seems to cause the individual to distrust his own experience, and to stifle significant learning. Hence 1 have come to feel that the outcomes of teaching are either unimportant or hurtful. h. WhenI look hack at the results of mypast teaching, the real results seem the same-- either damagewas done, or nothing significant occurred. This is frankly troubling. i. As a consequence, I realize that I am only interested in being a learner, preferably learning things that matter, that have some significant influence on my o~n behavior. j. 1 find it very re,yarding to learn, in groups, in relationships with one person as in therapy, or by myself. It. I find that one of the best, but most difficul t ~ays for me to Personal Thoughts on Teaching and Learning 277 learn is to drop my o,t~n defensiveness, at least temporarily, and to try to understand the cony in q~hloh his experience seems and feels to the other person. 1. I find that another q~ay of learning for me is to state my oq~n uncertainties, to try to clarify my puzzlements, and thus get closet to the meaning that my experience actually seems to have. m. This whole train of experiencing, and the meanings that I have thus far discovered in it, seem to have launched me on a process which is both fascinating and at times a little frightening. It seems to mean letting my experience carry me on, in a direction ~bich appears to be forqJ;ard, toward goals that I can but dhnly define, as I try to understand at least the current meaning of that experience. The sensation is that of floating with a complex stream of experience, with the fascinating possibility of trying to comprehendits ever changing complexity. I amalmost afraid I mayseemto have gotten awayfrom any discussion of learning, as wen as teaching. Let me again introduce a practical note by saying that by themselves these interpretations of myown experience maysound queer and aberrant, but not particularly shocking. It is whenI realize the implications that I shudder a bit at the distance I have comefrom the commonsenseworld that everyone knowsis right. I can best ilhistrate that by saying that if the experiences of others had been the same as mine, and if they had discovered similar meaningsin it, manyconsequenceswould be implied. a. Such experience would imply that we would do away with teaching. People would get together if they ~q.shed to learn. b. Wewould do away with examinations. They measure only the inconsequential type of learning. c. The implication would be that we would do away with grades and credits for the samereason. d. Wewould do away with degrees as a measure of competence partly for the same reason. Another reason is that a degree marks an end or a conclusion of something, and a learner is only interested in the continuing process of learning. e. It would imply doing away with the exposition of conclusions, W~xAJg ~mzI~LVUCaXm~ ~oa Llvm~ 278 for we would realize that no one learns significantly from conclusior~ I think I had better stop there. I do not want to become too fant~cic. I want to knowprimarily whether anything in myinward thinking as I have tried to describe it, speaks to anything in your experience of the classroom as you have lived it, and if so, what tl~ meanings are that exist for you in your experience. 14 Significant Learning: In Therapy and in Education Goddard College, smallof experimental college wbicbatin Plainfield, addition to itsVermont, efJorts ison abebalf its students, frequently organizes conferences and workshopsfor educators, where they may deal with significant problems. I was asked to lead suck a workshopin February 19Y8, on "Tke Implications of Psychotherapy for Education." Teachers and educational administrators from the eastern ball of the country, and especially from tke New England area, found their way tbrougb the thick snowdrifts to spend three concentrated days together. I decided to try to reformulate my views on teaching and learning for this conference, hopefully in a way which would be less disturbing than the statement in the preceding chapter, yet without dodging the radical implications of a therapeutic approach. This paper is tloe result. For those who are familiar with Part II of this book the sections on "The Conditions of Learning in Psychotherapy" and "The Process of Learning in Therapy" will be redundant and may be skipped, since they are merely a reaatement of the basic conditions for therapy, as described earlier. To me this is the most satisfying [ornmlation I bare achieved of ttoe meaning of the hypotheses of client-centered therapy in the field of education. 279 W~r ARE 1"~ L~PUCA~ONS t~ot LwmQ~ 280 pRgs~ ~zRzIs A a~agsls, a pointhasoffor view, regarding cations which psychotherapy education. It the is aimpiistand whichI take tentatively, and with somehesitation. I have manyunanswered questions about this thesis. But it has, I think, some clarity in it, and hence it mayprovide a starting point from which clear differences can emerge. ¯ $I~’~I~ LEAmC~G ~ PSYCHOTI--mRA~ Let me begin by saying that my long experience as a therapist convinces methat significant learning is facilitated in psychotherapy, and occurs in that relationship. By significant learning I meanlearning which is more than an accumulation of facts. It is learning which makes a di~erence -- in the individual’s behavior, in the course of action he chooses in the future, in his attitudes and in his personality. It is a pervasive learning which is not just an accretion of knowledge, but which interpenetrates with every portion of his existence. Nowit is not only my subjective feeling that such learning takes place. This feeling is substantiated by research. In client-centered therapy, the orientation with which I am most familiar, and in which the most research has been done, we knowthat exposure to such therapy produces learnings, or changes, of these sorts: The person comessee himself differently. He acceptS himself and his feelings more fully. He becomes more self-confident and self-directing. He becomesmorethe person he would like to be. He becomesmore flexible, less rigid, in his perceptions. He adopts more realistic goals for himself. He behaves in a more mature fashion. He changes his maladinstive behaviors, even such a long-eatablished one as chronic alcoholism. He becomesmore acceptant of others. Significant Learning: In Therapy ana in Education 281 He becomesmore open to the evidence, both to what is going on outside of himself, and to what is going on inside of himself. He changes in his basic personality characteristics, in constructive ways.* I think perhaps this is sufficient to indicate that these are learnhags which are significant, which do mokea difference. SIGNIFICANT Lma~G rN EDUCATmN I believe I am accurate in saying that educators too are interested in learnings which makea difference. Simple knowledgeof facts has its value. To knowwhowonthe battle of Poltava, or whenthe umpteenth opus of Mozart was first performed, may win $64,000 or someother sum for the possessor of this information, but I believe educators in general are a little embarrassed by the assumption that the acquisition of such knowledgeconstitutes education. Speaking of this reminds me of a forceful statement madeby a professor of agronomyin my freshman year in college. Whatever knowledge I gained in his course has departed completely, but I rememberhow, with World WarI as his background, he was comparingfactual knowledgewith ammunition. He woundup his little discourse with the exhortation, "Don’t be a damnedammunitionwagon;be a rifle!" I believe most educators would share this sentiment that knowledge exists primarily for use. To the extent then that educators are interested in learnings which are functional, which makea difference, which pervade the person and his actions, then they might well look to the field of psychotherapy for leads or ideas. Someadaptation for education of the learning process which takes place in psychotherapy seems like a promising possibility. THECONDITIONS OFLEARNING IN PSYCHOTHERAPY Let us then see what is involved, essentially, in makingpossible the learning which occurs in therapy. I would like to spell out, as clearly o For evidence supporting these statements see references (7) and (9). W~T AxB T~ IMmJ~XONS~o~ LmNG~ aS I can, the conditions which seem to be present when this phenomenon OCCU/~ FAt~4GA PROBLEM The client is, first of all, up ag~ a situation which he perceives as a serious and meaningful problerm It may be that he finds himself behaving in ways in which he cannot control, or he is overwhelmed by confusions and conflicts, or his marriage is going on the rocks, or he finds himself unhappyin his work. He is, in short, faced with a problem with which he has tried to cope, and found himseif unsuccessful. He is therefore eager to learn, even though atthe same time he is frightened that what he discovers in himseff maybe disturbing. Thus one of the conditions nearly always present is an uncertain and ambivalent desire to learn or to change, growing out of a perceived difficulty in meeting life. Whatare the conditions which this individual meets whenhe comesto a therapist? I have recently formulated a theoretical picture of the necessary and sufficient conditions which the therapist provides, if constructive change or significant learning is to occur (8). This theory is currently being tested in several of its aspects by empirical research, but it must still be regarded as theory based upon clinical experience rather than proven fact. Let me describe briefly the conditions which it seems essential that the therapist should provide. CONGRUENCE If therapy is to occur, it seems necessary that the therapist be, in the relationship, a unified, or integrated, or congruent person. What I mean is that within the rehtionship he is exactly what he is -- not a facade, or a role, or a pretense. I have used the term "congruence" to refer to this accurate matching of experience with awareness. It is when the therapist is fully and accurately aware of what he is experiencing at this momentin the relationship, that he is fully congruent. Unless this congruence is present to a considerable degree it is unlikely that significant learning can occur. Thoughthis concept of congruence is actually a complex one, I believe all of us recognize it in an intuitive and commonsenseway in individuals with whomwe deal. With one individual we recognize $ignil~cant Learning: In Tber~y and in Education 283 that he not only means exactly what he says, but that his deepest feelings also match what he is expressing. Thus whether he is angry or affectionate or ashamed or enthusiastic, we sense that he is the same at all levels-- in what he is experiencing at an organismic level, in his awareness at the conscious level, and in his words and communications. Wefurthermore recognize that he is acceptant of his immediate feelings. Wesay of such a person that we know"exactly where he stands" We tend to feel comfortable and secure in such a relationship. With another person we recognize that what he is saying is almost certainly a front or a facade. Wewonder what he really feels, what he is really experiencing, behind this fagade. We mayalso wonderif be knowswhat he really feels, recognizing that he ~nay be quite unaware of the feelings he is actually experiencing. With such a person we tend to be cautious and wary. It is not the kind of relationship in which defenses tan be dropped or in which significant leanaJng and change can occur. Thus this second condition for therapy is that the therapist is characterized by a considerable degree of congruence in the relationship. He is freely, deeply, and acceptandy himself, with his actual experience of his feelings and reactions matched by an accurate awareness of these feelings and reactions as they occur and as they change. UNCONDITIO~qAL POSITIVE REGARD A third condition is that the therapist experiences a warmcaring for the client-- a caring which is not possessive, which demands no personal gratification. It is an atmosphere which simply demonstrateS "I care"; not "I care for you if you behave thus and so." Standal (11) has termed this attitude "unconditional positive re~rd," since it has no conditions of worth attached to it. I have often used the term "acceptance" to describe this aspect of the therapeutic climate. It involves as muchfeeling of acceptance for the client’s expression of negative, "bad," painful, fearful, and abnormal feelings as for his expression of "good," positive, mature, confident and social feelings. It involves an acceptance of and a caring for the client as a separate person, with permission for hinl to have his ownfeclin~ and experiences, and to find his own meanings in them. To the degree that the therapist can provide this safety-creating climate of WuAT A~T~ Im, UCaTm~S ~ Ln~Q? 284 unconditional positive regard, fign~eant learning is likely to take place. ANEMPATHIC UNDERSTANDING The fourth condition for therapy is that the therapist is experienc~ ing an accurate, empathic understanding of the client’s world as seen from the inside. To sense the client’s private world as if it were your own, but without ever losing the "as if" quarry--tiffs is empathy, and this seems essential to therapy. To sense the client’s anger, fear, or confusion as if it were your own, yet without your ownanger, fear, or confusion getting bound up in it, is the condition we are endeavoring to describe. Whenthe client’s world is this clear to the therapist, and he movesabout in it freely, then he can both communicatehis understanding of what is clearly knownm the client and can also voice meaningsin the client’s experience of which the client is scarcely aware. That such penetrating empathy is important for therapy is indicated by Fiedler’s research in which items such as the following placed high in the description of relationships created by experienced therapists: The therapist is well able to understand the patient’s feelings. The therapist is never in any doubt about what the patient means. The therapist’s remarks fit in just right with the patient’s mood and content. The therapist’s tone of voice conveys the complete ability to share the patient’s feelings. (3) FIFTHCONDITI01~ A fifth condition for significant learning in therapy is that the client should experience or perceive something of the therapist’s congruence, acceptance, and empathy, it is not enough that these conditions exist in the therapist. They must, to somedegree, have been successfully communicatedto the client. T~z P~ocEssoF Lzs~-i~o r~ THERA~ It has been our experience that whenthese five conditions exist, a process of change inevitably occurs. The client’s rigid perceptions $ignlflcant Learning: In Therapy and in Education 285 of himself and of others loosen and becomeopen to reality. The rigid waysin whichhe has construed the meaningof his experience are looked at, and he finds himself questioning many of the "facts" of his life, discovering that they are only "facts" because he has regarded them so. He discovers feelings of which he has been unaware, and experiences them, often vividly, in the therapeutic rehtionship. Thus he learns to be more open to all of his experience -- the evidence within himself as well as the evidence withou~ He learus to be more 9f his experience--to be the feelings of which he has been frightened as well as the feelings he has regarded as more acceptable. He becomesa morefluid, changing, learning person. THEMAINSPRING OFCHANGE In this process it is not necessary for the therapist to "motivate" the client or to supply the energy which brings about the change. Nor, in some sense, is the motivation supplied by the client, at least in any conscious way. Let us say rather that the motivation for learnhag and change springs from the self-actualizing tendency of life itself, the tendency for the organism to flow into all the differentiated channels of potential development, insofar as these are experienced as enhancing. I could go on at very considerable length on this, but it is not my purpose to focus on the process of therapy and the learnings which take place, nor on the motivation for these learnings, but rather on the conditions which make them possible. So I will simply conclude this description of therapy by saying that it is a type of significant learning which takes place whenfive conditions are ITlet: Whenthe client perceives himself as faced by a serious and meaningful problem; Whenthe therapist is a congruent person in the relationship, able to be the person he is; Whenthe therapist feels an unconditional pusitiw regard for the client; Whenthe therapist experiences an accurate empathic undersumdhag of the client’s private world, and communicatestiffs; Whenthe client to somedegree experiences the therapist’s congruence, acceptance, and empathy. W~T Aim T~ L~x~-~cA~oNs Fo~ Ln~ IMPLICATIONS FOREDUCATION What do these conditions mean if appfied m education? Undoubtedly the teacher will be able m give a better answer than I out of his own experience, but I will at least suggest some of the implicatious~ CONTACT ~ PROBLEMS In the first place it meansthat significant learning occurs more readily in relation to situations perceived as problems. I believe I have observed evidence m support this. In my ownvarying attempts m conduct courses and groups in ways consistent with my therapeutic experience, I have found such an approach more effective, I believe, in workshopsthan in regular courses, in extension courses than in campuscourses. Individuals who cometo workshops or extension courses are those whoare in contact with problems which they recognize as problems. The student in the regular nniversky course, and particularly in the required course, is apt to view the course as an experience in which he expects to remain passive or resentful or beth, an experience which he certainly does not often see as relevant m his own problems. Yet it has also been my experience that whena regular university class does perceive the course as an experience they can use to resolve problems which are of concern to them, the sense of release, and the thrust of forward movementis astonishing. And this is true of cours~ as diverse as Mathematics and Personality. I believe the current situation in Russian education also supplies evidence on this point. Whena whole nation perceives itself as being faced with the urgent problem of being behind-- in agriculture, in industrial production, in scientific development, in weapons development--then an astonishing amount of significant learning takes place, of which the Spumiksare but one observable example. So the first implication for education might well be that we permit the student, at any level, to be in real contact with the relevant problems of his existence, so that he perceives problems and issues which Signifi¢~ Le~’~ing: In Tberupy ~d in Educ~twn 287 he wishes to resolve. I am quite aware that this implication, like the others I shall mention, runs sharply contrary to the current trends in our culture, but I shall commenton that later. I believe it wouldbe quite clear from my description of therapy that an overall implication for education would be that the task of the teacher is to create a facilitating classroom climate in which significant learning can take place. This general implication can be broken downinto suveral sub-scction~ Tnz TZACaZR’S IL~m-sms Learning will be facilitated, it would seem, if the teacher is congruant. This involves the teacher’s being the person that he is, and being opanly aware of the attitudes he holds. It means that he feeLs acceptant toward his own real feelings. Thus he becomes a real person in the relationship with his studentx He can be enthusiastic about subiects he likes, and bored by topics he does not like. He can be angry, but he can also be sensitive or sympathetic. Because he accepts his feeling as bis feelings, he has no need to impose them on his students, or to insist that they feel the sameway. He is a person, not a faceless embodimentof a cnrricuiar requirement, or a sterile pipe through which Imowiedgeis passed from one generation to the next. I can suggest only one bit of evidence which might support this view. As I think back over a number of teachers who have facilitated myownlearning, it seems to me each one has this quality of being a real person. I wonderif your memoryis the same. If so, perhaps it is less important that a teacher cover the allotted amount of the curriculum, or use the most approved andio-vLsml devices, than that he be congruent, real, in his relation to his student*. ACCEPTANCE ANDUNDEUSTAN~INO Another implication for the teacher is that significant learning may take place if the teacher can accept the student as he is, and can understand the feelings he possesses. Taking the third and fourth conditions of therapy as specified above the teacher who can warmly accept, whocan provide an unconditional positive regard, and who can empathize with the feelings of fear, anticipation, and discourage- 288 W~T A~ THE IM~ICATIONS Foa Lrema? merit which are involved in meeting new material, will have done a great deal toward setting the conditions for learning. Clark Moustakas, in his book, The Teacher and the Child (5), has given many excellent examples of individual and group situations from kindergotten to high school, in which the teacher has worked toward just’ this type of goal. It will perhaps disturb some that when the teacher holds such attitudes, when he is willing to be acceptant of feelings, it is not only attitudes toward school work itself which are expressed, but feelings about parents, feelings of hatred for brother or sister, feelings of concern about self-- the whole gamut of attitudes. Do such feelings have a right to exist openly in a school setting? It is my thesis that they do. They are related to the person’s becoming, to his effective learning and effective functioning, and to deal understandingly and acceptantly with such feelings has a definite relationship to the learning of long division or the geography of Pakistan. PROVISION OFRESOURCES This brings me to another implication which therapy holds for education. In therapy the resources for learning one’s self lie within. There is very little data which the therapist can supply which will be of help since the data to be dealt with exist within the person. In education this is not true. There are manyresources of knowledge, of techniqueS, of theory, which constitute raw material for use. It seems to methat what I have said about therapy suggests that these materials, these resources, be madeavailable to the students, not forced upon them. Here a wide range of ingenuity and sensitivity is an agset. I do not need to list the usual resources which cometo mind w books, maps, workbooks,materials, recordings, work-space, tools, and the like. Let me focus for a momenton the waythe teacher uses himself and his knowledgeand experience as a resource. If the teacher holds the point of view I have been expressing then he would probably want to makehimself available to his class in at least the following ways: He would want to let them knowof special experience and knowb edge he has in the field, and to let them know they could call on Signil~c~t Learning: In Tb~apy and in Education 289 this knowledge. Yet he would not want them to feel that they must use him in this way. He would want them to knowthat his own way of thinking about the held, and of organizing it, was available to them, even in lecrare form, if they wished. Yet again he would want this to be perceived as an offer, which could as readily be refused as accepted. He would want to makehimself knownas a resource-findet. Whatevermight be seriously wanted by an individual or by the whole group to promote their learning, he would be very willing to consider the possibilities of obtaining such a resource. He would want the quality of his relationship to the group to be such that his feelings could be freely available to them, without being imposedon them or becominga restrictive influence on them. He thus could share the excitements and enthusiasms of his own learnings, without insisting that the students follow in his footsteps; the feelings of disinterest, satisfaction, bafflement, or pleasure which he feels toward individual or group activities, without this becoming either a carrot or a stick for the student. His hope would be that he could say, simply for himself, "I don’t like that," and that the student with equal freedom could say, "But I do." Thus whatever the resource he supplies--a book, space to work, a new tool, an opportunity for observation of an industrhl process, a lecture based on his ownstudy, a picture, graph or map, his own emotional reactions--he would feel that these were, and would hope they would be perceived as, offerings to be used if they were useful to the student. He would not feel them m be guides, or expectations, or commands,or impositions or requirements. He would offer himself, and all the other resources he could discover, for use. "FnE BAsic MOTIVE It should be clear from this that his basic reliance would be upon the self-actualizing tendency in his students. The hypothesis upon whichhe wouldbuild is that students whoare in real contact with life problems wish to learn, want to grow, seek to find out, hope to master, desire to create. He would see his function as that of developing such a personal relationship with his students, and such a 290 W~TAte ~ I~,Ltc~o:,~ mn L~me.? climate in his classroom, that these natural tendencies could come to their fruition. SoumO~assioNs These I see as some of the things which are implied by a therapeutic viewpoint for the educational process. To makethem a bit sharper, let mepoint out some of the things which are not impfied. I have not included lectures, talks, or expositions of subject matter which are imposed on the student~ All of these procedures might be a part of the experience if they were desired, explicidy or impficidy, by the students. Yet even here, a teacher whoseworkwas following through a hypothesis based on therapy would be quick to sense a shift in that desire. He might have been requested to lecture to the group (and to give a requested lecture is very different from the usual classroom experience), but if he detected a growingdisinterest and boredom, he would respond to that, trying to understand the feeling which had arisen in the group, since his response to their feelings and attitudes would take precedence over his interest in expoundingmaterial I have not included any program of evaluation of the student’s learnings in terms of external criteria. I have not, in other words, included examinations. I believe that the testing of the student’s achievements in order to see if he meets some criterion held by the teacher, is directly contrary to the implications of therapy for siguificant learning. In therapy, the examinations are set by life. The client meets them, sometimes passing, sometimes failing. He finds that he can use the resources of the therapeutic relationship and his experience in it to organize himself so that he can meet life’s tests more satisfyingly next time. I see this as the paradigm for education also. Let me try to spell out a fantasy of what it would mean. In such an education, the requirements for manylife situations would be a part of the resources the teacher provides. The student would have available the knowledgethat he cannot enter engineering school without so muchmath; that he cannot get a job in X corporation unless he has a college diploma; that he cannot becomea psychologist without doing an independent doctoral research; that he cannot be a doctor without knowledgeof chemistry; that he cannot Significant Learning: In Tloerapy and in Educmlon 291 even drive a car without passing an examination on rules of the road. These are requirements set, not by the teacher, hut by life. The teacher is there to provide the resources which the student can use to learn so as to be able to meet these tests. There would be other in-school evaluations of similar sort. The student might well be faced with the fact that he cannot join the Math Club until he makes a certain score on a standardized mathematics test; that he cannot develop his camera film until he has shownan adequate knowledgeof che~ and lab techniques; that he cannot join the special literature section until he has shown evidence of both wide reading and creative writing. The natural place of evaluation in life is as a ticket of entrance, not as a club over the recalcitrant. Our experience in therapy would suggest that it should be the same wayin the school. It would leave the student as a self-respecting, serf-motivated person, free to choose whether he wished to put forth the effort to gain these tickets of entrance. It would thus refrain from forcing him into conformity, from sacriricing his creativity, and from causing him to live his life in terms of the standards of others. I am quite aware that the two elements of which I have just been speaking--the lectures and expositions imposed by the teacher on the group, and the evaluation of the individual by the teacher, consitute the two major ingredients of current education. So whenI say that experience in psychotherapy would suggest that they both be omitted, it should be quite clear that the implications of psychotherapy for education are startling indeed. PROBABLE OUTCOMES If we are to consider such dr~c changes as I have outlined, what would be the results which would justify them? There have been some research investigations of the outcomes of a studentcentered D’pe of teaching (1, 2, 4), though these ~udles are far from adequate. For one thing, the situations studied vary greatly in the extent to which they meet the conditions I have described. Most of them have extended only over a period of a few months, though one recent study with lower class children extended over a full )rear (4). Someinvolve the use of adequate controls, some do not. 292 Ww,T A~ ~ I~PLICATmNS FORLn~so? I think we maysay that these studies indicate that in classroom situations which at least attempt to approximate the climate I have descr~ed, the findings are as follows: Factual and curricular learning is roughly equal to the learning in conventional classes. Some studies report slighdy more, some slightly less. The student-centered group shows gains significantly greater than the conventional class in personal adjustment, in self-initiated extra-curricniar learning, in creativity, in self-responsibility. I have cometo realize, as I have considered these studies, and puzzled over the design of better studies which should be more informative and conclusive, that findings from such research will never answer our question~ For all such findings must be evaluated in terms of the goals we have for education. If we value primarily the learning of knowledge,then we maydiscard the conditions I have described as useless, since there is no evidence that they lead to a greater rate or amount of factual knowledge. Wemaythen favor such measures as the one which I understand is advocated by a numberof membersof Congress--the scatting up of a training school for scientists, modeledupon the military academies. But if we value creativity, if we deplore the fact that all of our germinal ideas in atomic physics, in psychology, and in other sciences have been borrowedfrom Europe, then we maywish to give a trial to ways of facilitating learning which give more promise of freeing the rain& If we value independence, if we are disturbed by the growing conformity of knowledge,of values, of attitudes, which our present system induces, then we may wish to set up conditions of learning which make for uniqueness, for self-direction, and for selfinitiated learning. SoM.zCOSCCUD~G IssuEs I have tried to sketch the kind of education which would be implied by what we have learned in the field of psychotherapy. I have endeavored to suggest very briefly what it would meanif the central focus of the teacher’s effort were to develop a rehrionship, Significant Learning: In Therapy and in Education 293 an atmosphere, whichwas conducive to self-motivated, self-actualizing, significant learning. But this is a direction which leads sharply away from current educational practices and educational trends, Let me mention a few of the very diverse issues and questions which need to be faced if we are to think constructively about such an approach. In the first place, how do we conceive the goals of education? The approach I have outlined has, I believe, advantages for achieving certain goals, but not for achieving others. We need to be clear as to the way we see the purposes of education. What are the actual outcomes of the kind of education I have described? Weneed a great deal more of rigorous, hard-headed research to knowthe actual results of this kind of education as comparedwith conventional education. Then we can choose on the basis of the facts. Even if we were to try such an approach to the facilitation of learning, there arc many difficult issues. Could we possibly permit students to comein contact with real issues? Our whole culture -through custom, through the law, through the efforts of labor unions and management,through the attitudes of parents and teachers-is deeply committed to keeping young people away from any touch with real problems. They are not to work, they should not carry responsibility, they have no busqmess in civic or political problems, they have no place in international concerns, they simply should be guarded from any direct contact with the real problems of individual and group living. They are not expected to help about the home, to earn a living, to contribute to science, to deal with moral issues. This is a deep seated trend which has lasted for more than a generation. Could it possibly he reversed? Another issue is whether we could permit knowledge to he organized in and by the individual, or whether it is to be organized for the individual. Here teachers and educators llne up with parents and national leaders to insist that the pupil must be guided. He must be inducted into knowledgewe have organized for him. He cannot be trusted to organize knowledgein functional terms for himself. As Herbert Hooversays of high school students, "You simply can- 294 W~Ar A~ ~ L~,uca~o~s ~ Lrv~m? not expect kids of those ages to determine the sort of education they need unless they have some guidance."" This seems so obvious to most people that even to question it is to seem somewhatunbalanced. Even a chancellor of a university questions whether freedomis really necessary in education, saying that perhaps we have° overestimated its value. He says the Russians have advancedmightily in science without it, and implies that we should learn from them. Still another issue is whether we would wish to oppose the stTong current trend toward education as drill in factual knowledge. All must learn the same facts in the same way. Admiral Riekover states it as his belief that "in some fashion we must devise a way to introduce uniform standards into American education.... For the first time, parents would have a real yardstick to measure their schools. If the local school continued to teach such pleasant subjects as ’life adjusunent’ . . . instead of French and physics, its diploma would be, for all the world to see, inferior."t This is a statement of a very prevalent view. Even such a friend of forward-looking views in education as MaxLerner says at one point, "All that a school can ever hope to do is to equip the student with tools which he can later use to becomean educated man" ($, p. 741). It is quite clear that he despairs of significant learning taking place in our school system, and feels that it must take place outside. All the school can do is to pound in the tools. One of the most painless ways of inculcating such factual tool knowledgeis the "teaching machine" being devised by B. F. Skinner and his associates (10). This group is demonstrating that the teacher is an outmodedand ineffective instrument for teaching arithmetic, trigonometry, French, literary appreciation, geography, or other factual subject~ There is simply no doubt in mymind that these teaching machines, providing immediate rewards for "right" answers, will be further developed, and will comeinto wide use. Here is a new contribution from the field of the behavioral sciences with which we must cometo terms. Does it take the place of the approach I have described, or is it supplemental to it? Here is one of the problems we must consider as we face toward the future. ¯ T/me, December2, 1957. t lb/d. Significant Learning: In Therapy and in Education 295 I hope that by posing these issues, I have made it clear that the double-barreled question of what constitutes significant learning, and howit is to be achieved, poses deep and serious problems for all of us. It is not a time whentimid answers will suffice. I have tried to give a definition of significant learning as it appears in psychotherapy, and a description of the conditions which facilitate such learning. I have tried to indicate some implications of these conditions for education. I have, in other words, proposed one answer to these questions. Perhaps we can use what I have said, against the twin backdrops of current public opinion and ettrrent knowledge in the behavioral sciences, as a start for discovering some fresh ansavers of our own. P~EFERENCES 1. Faw, Volney. A psyehotherapeutic method of teaching psychology..~Imer. PsycboL4: 104-09, 1949. 2. Faw, Volney. "Evaluation of student-centered teaching." Unpublished manuscript, 1954. 3. Fiedler, F. E. A comparison of therapeutic relationships in psychoanalytic, non-directive and Adlerian therapy. ]. Consuh. Psyehol. 1950, 14, 436-45. 4. Jackson, John H. The relationship between psychological climate and the quality of learning outcomes amonglower-status pupils. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, 1957. 5. Lerner, Max.America as a Civilization. Schuster, 1957. NewYork: Simon& 6. Moustakas,Clark. The Teacher and the Child. NewYork: McGrawHill, 1956. ?. Rogers, C. IL Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: HoughtonMifflin Co., 1951. 296 W~T A~ ~ L~’LICATIONS s~t Lnrm¢? 8. Rogers, C. R. The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. ]. Co~.rult. Psycbol. 1957, 21, 95-103. 9. Rogers, C. R., and R. Dymond,(Eds.). Psychotherapy and Personality Change. University of Chicago Press, 1954. I0. Skinner, B. F. The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review 1954, 24, 86-97. 11. Standal, Stanley. The need for positive regard: A contribution to client-centered theory. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Chicago, 1954. 15 Student-Centered Teaching as Experienced by a Participant ~vill have been evident earlier in this volume that I cannot be It content simply to give my viev: of psychotherapy: 1 regard it as essential to give the client’s perception of the experience also, since this is indeed the racy material from ~vhich I have fornmlated my own vievos. In the same~vay I found I could not be content simply to for71mlate my views of what education is w.hen it is tmilt upon the learnings from psychotherapy: l ~vanted to give the student’s perception of ntcb education also. To this end I considered the various reports and "reaction sheets" ~:bicb I have assembled from students in different courses over the years. Excerpts from these v:ould have fulfilled my purpose. In the end, hov.’ever, l chose to use tw, o doclonents ~z~ritten by Dr. Sanmel Tenenbanm,the first iTpmtediately after his participation in a course of mine, the second a letter to me one year later. I am deeply grateful to him for his permission to use these personal statentents. I ,would like to place thent in context for the reader. In the stmrmer of 19Yg I "was invited to teach a four-.c.’eek course at Brandeis University. Myrecollection is that the title .,:’as "The 297 Process of Personality Change."1 had no great expectations for the course. It was to be one of several courses which the students were ~aking, meeting for three t~o-hour sessions per week, rather than the concentrated workshoppattern which I prefer. I learned in ad~amcethat the group was to be unusually heterogeneous--teachers, doctoral candidates in psychology, counselors, several priests, at least one from a foreign country, psychotherapists in private pracace, school psychologists. The group was, on the average, more mature and experienced than would ordinarily be found in a university course. I felt very relaxed about the whole thing. 1 would do what I could to help make this a meaningful experience for us all, but 1 doubted that it could have the impact of, for example, the workshops on counseling which l bad conducted. Perhapsit was because I had very modest expectations of the group and of myself, that it went so well. I would without doubt class it as amongthe mort satisfying of my attempts to facilitate learning in courses or workshops. This should be borne in mind in reading Dr. Tenenboum’ s material. 1 would like to digress for a momenthere to say that I feel far more assurance in confronting a new client in therapy than I do in confronting a new group. 1 feel I have a sufficient grasp of the conditions of therapy so that I have a reasonable confidence as to the process which will ensue. But with groups I have muchless confidence. Sometimes when i have had every reason to suppose a course would go well, the vital, self-im’tlated, self-directed learning has simply not occurred to any great degree. At other times when I have been dubious, it has gone extremely well. To me this means that our formulation of the process of facilitating learning in education is not nearly as accurate or complete as our formulations regardins the therapeutic process. But to return to the Brandeis sunrmer course. It was clearly st highly significant experience for almost all of the participants, as evident in their reports on the course. I was particularly interested in the report by Dr. Tenenbaum,written as muchfor his colleagues as for me. Here was a mature scholar, not an impressionable young student. Here was a sophisticated educator, who already had to his credit a published biography of William H. Kilpatrick~ the pbiloso- student-Centered Teaeblng 299 pber of education. Hencehis perceptions of tbe experience seemed unusually valuable. l would not want it to be underytood tbat I shared all of Dr. Tenenbaum’sperceptions. Portions of tbe experience I perceived quite differently, but this is what madehis observations so helpful. I felt particularly concerned that it seemed to him so mucka "Rogers" approach, that it was simply my person and idiosyncrasies re;blab made the experience what it was. For this reason 1 was delighted to get a long letter from him a year later, reporting his o,um experience in teaching. This confirmed ~bat I bare learned from a ¢~icle variety of individuals, that it is not simply the personality of a specific teacher which makes this a dynamic learning experience, but the operation of certain principles ~bicb may be utilized by any "facilitator" who holds the appropriate attitudes. I believe the two accounts by Dr. Tenenbaum~2ill make it clear re;by teachers who bare experienced the kind of group learning q~bicb is described can never return to more stereotyped ways of education. In spite of frustration and occasional failure, one keeps trying to discover, witb eacb new group, the ¢onditious which q~ill unleash this vital learning experience. Carl R. Rogers and Non-Directive Teaching by SamuelTenenbaum,Ph.D. o~rz r~a’~a~-a’r~ in education, I have participated in a classroom A methodologythat is so unique and so special that I feel impelled to share the experience. The technique, it seems to me, is so radically different from the customary, and the accepted, so undermining of the old, that it should be knownmorewidely. As good a description of the process as any- I suppose the one that Carl IL 300 WHAT ARE THE IbIPLICATION8 FOg Ln, mG~ Rogers, the instructor, himself would be inclined to use--would be "non-directive" teaching. I had somenotion what that term meant, but frankly I was not prepared for anything that proved so overwhelming. It is not that I am convention-bound. Mystrongest educational influences stem from William Heard Kilpatrick and John Dewey,and anyone who has even the slightest acquaintance with their thinking would know that it does not smack of the narrow or the provincial. But this methodwhich I saw Dr. Rogers carry out in a course which he gave at Brandeis University was so unusual, somethingI could not believe possible, ouless I was part of the experience- I hope I shall manage to describe the methodin a wayto give you someinkling of the feelings, the emotions, the warmth and the enthusias~ns that the method engendered. The course was altogther unstructured; and it was exactly that. At no momentdid anyone know, not even the instructor, what the next momentwouldbring forth in the chssroom, what subiect would comeup for discussion, what questions would be raised, what personal needs, feelings and emotions aired. This atmosphere of nonstructured freedom--as free as humanbeings could allow each other to be--was set by Dr. Rogers himself. In a friendly, relazed way, he sat downwith the students (about 25 in number) around a large table and said it would be nice if we stated our purpose and introduced ourselves. There ensued a strained silence; no one spoke up. Finally, to break it, one student timidly raised his hand and spoke his piece. Another uncomfortable silence, and then another upraised hand. Thereafter, the hands rose more rapidly. At no time did the instructor urge any student to speak. UNSTRUCTURED APPROACH Afterwards, he informed the class that he had brought with him quantities of materials--reprints, brochures, articles, books; he handed out a bibliography of recommendedreading. At no time did he indicate that he expected students to read or do anything St~cm-CemeredTeachlng 301 else. As I recall, he madeonly one request. Wouldsome student volunteer to set up this material in a special room whichhad been reserved for students of the course? Twostudents promptly volunteered. He also said he had with him recorded tapes of therapeutic sessions and also reels of motion pictures. This created a flurry of excitement, and students asked whether they could be heard and seen and Dr. Rogers answered yes. The class then decided howit could be done best. Students volunteered to run tape recorders, find a movie projector; for the most part this too was student initiated and arranged. Thereafter followed four hard, frustrating sessions, During this period, the class didn’t seem to get anywhere. Students spoke at random, saying whatever came into their heads. It all seemed chaotic, aimless, a waste of time. A student would bring up some aspect of Rogers’ philosophy; and the next student, completely disregarding the first, would take the group away in another direction; and a third, completely disregarding the first two, wouldstart fresh on something else altogether. At times there were some faint efforts at a cohesive discussion, but for the most part the classroom proceedings seemed to lack continuity and direction. The instructor received every contribution with attention and regard. He did not find any student’s contribution in order or out of order. The class was not prepared for such a totally unstz~ctured approach. They did not knowhowto proceed. In their perplexity and frustration, they demandedthat the teacher play the role assigned to lfim by custom and tradition; that he set forth for us in anthoritative language what was right and wrong, what was good and bad. Had they not come from far distances to learn from the oracle himself? Werethey not fortunate? Werethey not about to be initiated in the right rituals and practices by the great man himself, the founder of the nmvementthat bears his name? The notebooks were poised for the climactic momentwhenthe oracle would give forth, but mostly they remained untouched. Queerly enough, from the outset, even in their anger, the members of the group felt joined together, and outside the classroom, there was an excitement and a ferment, for even in their frustration, they 3O2 W~x~ T~ I~tcAno~yea LIvmGP had communicatedas never before in any classroom, and probably never before in quite the waythey had. The class was bound together by a common,unique experience. In the Rogers class, they had spoken their minds; the words did not comefrom a hook, nor were they the reflection of the instructor’s thinking, nor that of any other authority. The ideas, emotions and feelings came from themselves; and this was the releasing and the exciting process. In this atmosphere of freedom, something for which they had not bargained and for which they were not prepared, the students spoke up as students seldom do. During this period, the insn’uctor took manyblows; and it seemed to me that manytimes he appeared to be shaken; and although he was the source of our irritation, we had, strange as it mayseem, a great affection for him, for it did not seem right to be angry with a manwhowas so sympathetic, so sensitive to the feelings and ideas of other~ Weall felt that what was involved was someslight misunderstanding, which once understood and remedied would makeeverything right again. But our instructor, gentle enough on the surface, had a "whimof steeL" He didn’t seem to understand; and if he did, he was obstinate and obdurate; he refused to comearound. Thus did this rag-of-wax continue. Weall looked to Rogers and Rogers looked to u~ One student, amid general approbation, observed: "Weare Rogers-centered, not studentcentered. Wehave cometo learn from Rogers." Escov~crsGTnn~xmG Another student had discovered that Rogers had been influenced by Kilpatrick and Dewey, and using this idea as a springboard, he said he thought he perceived what Rogers was trying to get at. He thought Rogers wanted students to think independently, creatively; he wanted students to becomedeeply involved with their very persons, their very selves, hoping that this might lead to the "reconstruction" of the person--in the Deweysense of the term- the person’s outlook, attitudes, values, behavior. This would be a true reconstruction of experience; it would be lcaming in a real sense. Certainly, he didn’t want the course to end in an examination based Student-Centered Teaching 303 on textbooks and lectures, followed by the traditional end-term grade, which generally means completion and forgetting.* Rogers had expressed the belief almost from the outset of the course that no one can teach anyone else anything. But thinking, this student insisted, begins at the fork in the road, the famed dilemmaset up by Dewey.As we reach the fork in the road, we do not knowwhich road to take if we are to reach our destination; and then we begin to examinethe situation. Thinking starts at that poin~ Kilpatriek also sought original thinking from his students and also rejected a regurgitant textbook kind of learning, but he presented crucial problems for discussion, and these problems aroused a great deal of interest, and they aLso created vast changes in the person. Whycan’t committees of students or individual students get up such problems for disenssion?f Rogers listened sympathetically and said, "I see you feel strongly about this?" That disposed of that. If I recall correedy, the next student whospoke completely disregarded what had been suggested and started afresh on another topic, quite in conformity with the custom set by the elasg Spasmodically, through the session, students referred favorably to the foregoing suggestion, and they began to demandmore insistently that Rogers assume the traditional role of a teacher. At this point, the blows were coming Rogers’ way rather frequendy and strongly and I thought I saw him bend somewhatbefore them. (Privately, he denied he was so affected.) During one session, a student madethe suggestion that he lecture one hour and that we have a class discust It should be noted that Dr. Rogers neither agreed nor disagreed. It was not his habit to respond to students’ contributions unless a remark was directed specifically to him; and even then he might choose not to answer. His main object, it seemedto me, was to follow soadents’ contributions intelligendy and sympathetically. i" One student compiledsuch a list, had it mimeographed,distributed it, and for practical purposes that was the end of that. In this connection, another illustration may be in order. At the first session, Rogers brought to class tape recordings of therspeu6c sessions. He explained that he was not comfortable in a teacher’s role and he came "loaded," and the recordings served as a sort of secutitS.’. One student continually insisted that he play the recordings, and after considerable pressure from the class, he did so, hut he eomolied reluctandy; and all told, despite the pressure, he did not play toem lor more than an hour in all the sessions. Apparently Rogers preterred the students to make real live recordings rather than ~en to those which could only interest them in an academic way. ~04 WHAT APET:~ IM~LIe~.TIO~’S FORLn, me? sion the next. This one suggestion seemedto fit into his plans. He said he had with him an unpublished paper. He warned us that it was available and we could read it by ourselves. But the student said it would not be the same. The person, the author, would be out of it, the stress, the inflection, the emotion, those nuances which give value and meaning to words Rogers then asked the students if that was what they wanted. They said yes. He read for over an hour. After the vivid and acrimonious exchanges to which we had become accustomed, this was certainly a letdown, dull and soporific to the extreme. This experience squelched all further demandsfor lecturing. In one of the momentswhenhe apologized for this episode ("It’s better, moreexcusable, whenstudents demandit."), he said: "Youasked me to lecture. It is true I ama resource, but what sense would there be in my lecturing? I have brought a great quantity of material, reprints of any numberof lectures, articles, books, tape recordings, movies." By the fifth session, something definite had happened; there was no mistaking tha~ Students spoke to one another; they by-passed Rogers. Students asked to be heard and wanted to be heard, and what before was a halting, stammering, self-eonscions group became an interacting group, a brand new cohesive unit, carrying on in a unique way; and from them camediscussion and thinking such as no other group but this could repeat or duplicate. The instructor also joined in, but his role, more important than any in the group, somehowbecamemergedwith the group; the group was itaportant, the center, the base of operation, not the instructor. Whatcaused it? I can only conjecture as to the reason- I believe that what happened was this: For four sessions students refused to believe that the instructor would refuse to play the traditional role. They still believed that he would set the tasks; that he would be the center of whatever happened and that he would manipulate the group. It took the class four sessions to realize that they were wrong; that he came to them with nothing outside of himself, outside of his ownperson; that if they really wanted something to happen, it was they whohad to provide the content-- an uncomfortable, challenging situation indeed. It was they whohad to speak up, with all the risks that that entailed. As part of the process, they Student-Centered Teaeblng 30S shared, they took exception, they agreed, they disagreed. At any rate, their persons, their deepest selves were involved; and from this situation, this special unique group, this newcreation was born. IMPORTANCE OF ACCEPTANCE As you may know, Rogers believes that if a person is accepted, fully accepted, and in this acceptance there is no judgment, only compassion and sympathy, the individual is able to cometo grips with himself, to develop the courage to give up his defenses and face his true self. I saw this process work. Amidthe early efforts to communicate, to find a modus vivendi, there had been in the group tentative exchanges of feelings, emotions and ideas; but after the fourth session, and progressively thereafter, this group, haphazardly thrown together, became close to one another and their true selves appeared. As they interacted, there were momentsof insight and revelation and understanding that were almost awesomein nature; they were what, I believe, Rogers would describe as "momentsof therapy," those pregnant momentswhen you see a humansoul revealed before you, in all its breathless wonder; and then a silence, almost like reverence, would overtake the class. Andeach memberof the class became enveloped with a warmth and a loveliness that border on the mystic. I for one, and I am quite sure the others also, never had an experience quite like this. It was learning and therapy; and by therapy ] do not mean illness, but what might be characterized by a healthy change in the person, an increase in his flexibility, his openness, his willingness to listen. In the process, we all felt elevated, freer, more accepting of ourselves and others, moreopen to new ideas, trying hard to understand and accept. This is not a perfect world, and there was evidence of hostility as membersdiffered. Somehowin this setting every blow was softened, as if the sharp edges had been removed; if undeserved, students would go off to something else; and the blow was somehowlost. In my own case, even those students who originally irritated me, with further acquaintance I began to accept and respect; and the thought occurred to meas i tried to understand what was happening: Once 3O6 W~TAREzlaz I~PL~CA~Or;S ~oa Lnr~ o? you comeclose to a person, perceive his thoughts, his emotions, his feelings, he becomesnot only understandable but good and desirable. Someof the more aggressive ones spoke more than they should, mor¢ than their right share, but the group itself, by its own being, not by setting rules, eventually madeits authority felt; and unless a person was very sick or insensitive, membersmoreor less, in this respect, conformedto what was expected of them. The problem-- the hosfile, the dominant, the neurotic--was not too acute; and yet if measured in a formal way, with a stop watch, at no time was a session free of aimless talk and waste of time. But yet as I watched the process, the idea persisted that perhaps this waste of time maybe necessary; it mayvery well be that that is the way manlearns best; for certainly, as I look back at the whole experience, I am fairly certain that it would have been impossible to learn as muchor as well or as thoroughly in the traditional classroom setting. If we accept Dewey’sdefinition of education as the reconstruction of experience, what better way can a person learn than by becoming involved with his whole self, his very person, his root drives, emotions, attitudes and values? No series of facts or arguments, no matter howlogically or brilliantly arranged, can even faintly compare with that sort of thing. In the course of this process, I saw hard, infle~n"nle, dogmatic persons, in the brief period of several weeks, change in front of my eyes and becomesympathetic, understanding and to a marked degree non-judgmental- I saw neurotic, compulsive persons ease up and becomemore accepting of themselves and others. In one instance, a student whoparticularly impressed me by his change, told mewhenI mentioned this: "It is true. I feel less rigid, more open to the world. AndI like myself better for it. I don’t believe I ever lcamedso muchanywhere." I saw shy persons becomeless shy and aggressive persons moresensitive and moderat~ One might say that this appears to be essentially an emotional process. But that I believe would be altogether inaccurate in describing it There was a great deal of intellectual content, but the intellectual content was meaningful and crucial to the person, in a sense that it meant a great deal to him as a person. In fact, one student brought up this very question. "Should we be concerned," Student-Centered Teaching 307 he asked, "only with the emotions? Has the intellect no phy?" It was myturn to ask, "Is there any student whohas read as muchor thought as muchfor any other course?" The answer was obvious. Wehad spent hours and hours reading; the room reserved for us had occupants until 10 o’clock at night, and then manyleft only because the university guards wanted to close the building. StudentS listened to recordings; they saw morion pictures; but best of all, they talked and talked and talked. In the traditional course, the instructor lectures and indicates what is m be read and learned; students dutifully record all this in their notebooks, take an examination and feel good or bad, depending on the outcome; but in nearly all cases it is a complete experience, with a sense of finality; the laws of forgetting begin to operate rapidly and inexorably. In the Rogers course, students read and thought inside and outside the class; it was they who chose from this reading and thinking what was meaningful to them, not the instructOg. This non-directive kind of teaching, I should point out, was not 100 per cent successful. There were three or four students who found the whole idea distasteful. Even at the end of the course, although nearly all became enthusiastic, one student to my knowledge, was intensely negative in his feelings; another was highly critical. These wanted the instructor to provide them with a rounded-out intellectual piece of merchandise which they could committo memoryand then give back on an examination. They would then have the assurance that they had learned what they should. As one said, "If I had to makea report as to what I learned in this course, what could I say?" Admittedly, it would be muchmore difficult than in a traditional course, if not impossible. The Rogers method was free and flowing and open and permissive. A student would start an interesting discussion; it would be taken up by a second; but a third student might take us away in another direction, bringing up a personal matter of no interest to the class; and we would all feel frustrated. But this was like /fie, flowing on like a river, seemingly futile, with never the same water there, flowing on, with no one knowingwhat would happen the next moment. But in this there was an expectancy, an alertness, an Wm~T ABET~ L~LIC.AT~ONS FORLrvmG? aliveness; it seemed to me as near a smear of life as one could get in a classroom. For the authoritarian person, who puts his faith in nearly piled up facts, this methodI believe can be threatening, for here he gets no reassurance, only an openness, a flowing, no closure. A NEW METHODOLOGY I believe that a great deal of the stir and the ferment that characterized the class was due to this hck of closure. In the lunch room, one could recognize Rogers’ students by their animated discussious, by their desire to be together; and sometimes, since there was no table large enough, they would sit two and three tiers deep; and they would eat with plates on their laps. As Rogers himself points out, there is no finality in the process. He himself never summarizes (against every conventional law of teaching). The issues are left unresolved; the problems raised in class are always in a state of flux, on-going. In their need to know, to come to some agreement, students gather together, wanting understanding, seeking closure. Even in the matter of gradas, there is no closure. A grade means an end; but Dr. Rogers does not give the grade; it is the student who suggests the grade; and since he does so, even this sign of completion is left unresolved, without an end, unclosed. Also, since the course is unstructured, each has staked his person in the course; he has spoken, not with the textbook as the gauge, but with his person, and thus as a serf he has communicatedwith others, and because of this, in contradistinction to the impersonal subject matter that comprises the normal course, there develops this closeheSS and warmth. To describe the manygracious acts that occurred might convey someidea of this feeling of closeness. One student invited the class to her homefor a cookout. Another student, a priest from Spain, was so taken with the group that he talked of starting a publication to keep track of what was happening to the group membersafter they disbanded. A group interested in stadent counseling met on its own. A memberarranged for the class to visit a mental hospital for ch/Idren and adults; also he arranged for us to see the experi- student-Ce~ered Teac~ng 309 mental work being done with psychotic patients by Dr. Linds|ey. Class membersbrought in tape recordings and printed matter to add to the library material set aside for our use. In every way the spirit of good-will and friendliness was manifest to an extent that happens only in rare and isolated instances. In the many, many courses I have taken I have not seen the like. In this connection, it should be pointed out that the memberscomprised a group that had been haphazardly thrown together; they had comefrom many backgroundsand they included a wide age range. I believe that what has been described above is truly a creative addition to classroom methodology; it is radically different from the old. That it has the capacity to move people, to make them freer, more open-minded, more flexible, I have no doubt I myself witnessed the power of this method. I believe that non-directive teaching has profound implications which even those who accept this point of view cannot at present fully fathom. Its importance, I believe, goes beyond the classroom and extends to every area where humanbeings communicateand try to live with one another. Morespecifically, as a classroom methodology, it warrants the widest discussion, inquiry and experimentation. It has the possibility of opening up a whole new dimension of thinking, fresh and original, for in its approach, in its practice, in its philosophy it differs so fundamentally from the old. It seems to me this approach ought to be tried out in every area of learning-- elementary, high school, college, wherever humanbeings gather to learn and improve on the old. At this stage we should not be overly concerned about its limiradons and inadequacies, since the methodhas not been refined and we do not knowas much about it as we ought As a new technique, it starts off with a handicap. We are loath to give up the old. The old is bolstered by tradition, authority and respectability; and we ourselves are its product. If we view education, however, as the reconstruction of experience, does not this presumethat the individual must do his ownreconstructing? He must do it himself, through the reorganization of his deepest self, his values, his attitudes, his very person. Whatbetter method is there to engro~ the individual; to bring him, his ideas, his feelings into communication with others; to break down the barriers that create isolation in a 310 WP.AT Aaz ¢az Ls~IcA~o~s yon Lnr~G? world where for his own mental safety and health, manhas to learn to be part of mankind? d Personal Teaching Experience (as reported to Dr. Rogers one year later) by SamudTenenbaum,Ph.D. IF]gEL tO write to you my first experience in teaching IMPELLED after being exposed to about your thinking and influence. You mayor maynot knowI had a phobia about teaching. Since my workwith you, I began to perceive more clearly where the difficulty lay. It was mostly in my concept of the role I had to play as a teacher--the motivator, director and the production chief of a performance. I always feared being "hung up" in the classroom-I believe it’s your expression and I have cometo like it-- the class listless, uninterested, not responding, and my yammeringand yammeting, until I lost poise, the sentences not forming, coming out artificially, and the time moving slowly, slowly, ever more slowly. This was the horror I imagined. I suppose pieces of this happen to every teacher, but 1 would put them all together, and I would approach the class with foreboding, not at ease, not truly myseLf. Andnowcomes myexperience. I was asked to give two summer courses for the Graduate School of Education of Yeshiva University, but I had a perfect alibi. I was going to Europe and I couldn’t. Wouldn’t I give an interim course, a concentrated course of 14 sessions during the month of June; and this would not interfere with the trip? I had no excuse and I accepted- becameI no longer wanted to dodge the situation and more, also, became I was determined once and for all to face it. If I didn’t like to teach (I haven’t taught for nearly ten years), I would learn sometlfing. And if I did, I would also learn something. And if I had to suffer, it was student-Centered Teact:~g 311 best this way, since the course was concentrated and the time element was short= You know that I have been strongly influenced in my thinking about education by Kilpatrick and Dewey. But now I had another powerful ingredient--yon. WhenI first met my class, I did something I never did before. I was frank about my feeling~ Instead of feeling that a teacher should know and students were there to be taught, I admitted weaknesses, doubts, dilemmas, and NOT KNOWING. Since I sort of dethroned my role as a teacher to the class and myself, my more natural serf came out more freely and I found myseff talking easily and even creatively. By "creatively" I meanideas came to meas I spoke, brand new ideas which I felt were good. Another important difference: It is true that since I was influenced by the Kilpatrick methodology I always welcomedthe widest discussion, but I now know, I still wanted and expected my students to knowthe text and the lecture material set out for them. Even worse, I nowknowthat although I welcomeddiscussion, I wanted, above all thinga, that, after all was said and done, the final conclusions of the class to comeout according to my way of thinking. Hencenone of the discussions were real discussions, in the sense that it was open and free and inquiring; none of the questions were real questions, in the sense that they sought to evoke thinking; all of them were loaded, in the sense that I had pretty definite convictions about what I thought were good answers and at thnes right answers. Hence, I cameto the class with subject matter and mystudents were really instruments by which situations were manipulated to produce the inclusion of what I regarded as desirable subject matter. In this last course, I didn’t have the courage to discard all subiect matter, but this time I really listened to my students; I gave them understanding and sympathy. AlthoughI would spend hours and hours preparing for each session, I found that not once did I refer to a note from the volunfinous material with which I entered the room. I allowed students free rein, not holding anyone downto any set course, and I permitted the widest diversion; and I followed wherever the students led. 312 W~T ~ r~ L~noNs7oR I.,t~G? I remember discussing this with a prominenteducator and he said, in what I thought was a disappointed and disapproving tone: "You insist, of course, on good thinking." I quoted William James, who in effect said that manis a speck of reason in an ocean of emotion. I told him that I was more interested in what I would call a "third dimension," the feeling part of the students. I cannot say I followed you all the way, Dr. Rogers, since I would express opinions and at fim~ unfortunately, lecture; and that I befieve is bad, since students, once authoritative opinions are expressed, tend not to think, but to try to guess what is in the instructor’s head and provide him with what he might like, so as to find favor in his eyes. If I had to do it over again, I would have less of that. But I did try and I believe I succeeded in large measure to give to each student a sense of dignity, respect and acceptance; farthest from mymindwas to check on them or evaluate and mark them. And the result-- and this is why I am writing you-- was for me an unparalleled experience, inexplicable in ordinary term~ I myself cannot fully account for it, except to be grateful that k happened to me. Someof the very qualifies which I experienced in your course I found in this which I gave. I found myself liking these paz, ticular students as I have never liked any other group of persons, and I found- and they expressed this in their tinal report--that they themselves began to feel warmand kindly and accepting of one another, orally and in their papers, they told of howmoved they were, howmuchthey learned, howwell they felt. For me this was a brand new experience, and I was overwhelmedand humbled by it. I have had students who, I believe, respected and admired me, but I never had a classroom experience from which came such warmth and closeness. Incidentally, following your example, I avoided setting any fixed requirements in terms of reading or classroom preparation. That the foregoing was not "biased perception" was evidenced from reports I got outside the classroom. The students had said such nice things about me that faculty memberswanted to sit in the class. Best of all, the students at the end of the course wrote Dean Student-Centered Teaching 313 Benjamin Fine a letter in which they said the nicest things about me. And the Dean in turn wrote me to the same effect. To say that I amoverwhelmedby what happened only faintly reflects my feelings. I have taught for many years but I have never experienced anything remotely resembling what occurred. I, for my part, never have found in the classroom so muchof the whole person coming forth, so deeply involved, so deeply stirred. Further, I question if in the traditional set-up, with its emphasis on subiect matter, examinations, grades, there is, or there can be a phce for the "becoming" person, with his deep and manifold needs, as he struggles to fulfill himself. But this is going far afield. I can only report to you what happenedand to say that I amgrateful and that I amalso humbledby the experience. I would like you to kmowthis, for again you have added to and enriched my life and being." * That this was not an isolated experience for Dr. Tenenbaumis indicated by a quotation from stiLl another personal communication, manymonths later. He says: "With another group I taught, following the first one, similar attitudes developed, only they were more accentuated, because, I believe, I was more comfortable with the technique and, I hope. more expemIn this second group there was the same release of the person, the same exhilaration and excitement, the same warmth, the same mystery that attaches to a person as he succeeds in shedding portions of his skin. Students from mygroup told me that while attending other classes, their eyes would meet, drawn to one another, as if they were unique and apart, as if they were bound together by a special experience. In this second group, also, 1 found that the students had developed a personal closeness, so daat at the end of the semester they talked of having annual reunions. They said that somehowor other they wanted to keep this experience alive and not lose one another. They also spoke of radical and fundamental changes in their person--in oudook, in values, in feelings, in attitudes both toward themselv~ and toward others." 16 The Implications of Client-Centered Therapy for Family Life . hen I was asked, several years ago, to speak to a local group on W any topic I wished, l decided to take a specific look at the changes in behavior exhibited by our clients in their ~amily relationships. This paper was the result. As r~car~srsG r~VMSraof our therapists and counselors have ASdealt with troubled individuals and groups, there has been agreement that our experience is relevant to, and has implications for, every area of interpersonal relationships. An attempt has been made to spell out some of the implications in certain areas--in the field of education, for example, in the area of group leadership, in the area of inter-group relationships-- but we have never tried to make explicit what it means in family life. This is the realm with which I should like to deal now, trying to give as clear a picture as I can 314 Implications of Client-Centered Tberapy 315 of what meaningsa client-centered point of view seems m have for that closest of all interpersonal circles --the family group. I do not wish to approach this from an abstract or theoretical level. What I wish to do is to present something of the changes our clients have experienced in their family relationships as they endeavor to work toward a more satisfactory life in their contacts with a therapist. I shall draw heavily on the verbatim statements of these people in order that you may get the flavor of their actual experience, and draw your ownconclusions for yourself. Althoughsomeof the experience of our clients seems to run counter to current concepts of what is involved in constructive family living, I am not particularly interested in arguing these differences. Also I am not particularly interested in setting up some model for family life in general, or in proposing the manner in which you should live in your family situation. I simply wish to present the gist of the experience of some very real people in some very real and often difficult family situations. Perhaps their struggles to live in a satisfying fashion will have some meaning for you. Whatthen, are someof the waysin which clients change in their family living, as a consequence of client-centered therapy? MORE EXPRESSIVE OF FE£LI/gG In the first phce it is our experience that our clients gradually come to express more fully, to membersof their families as well as to others, their true feelings. This applies to feelings that might be thought of as negative--resentment, anger, shame, jealousy, dislike, annoyance -- as well as feelings which might be thought of as positive--tenderness, admiration, liking, love. It is as though the client discovers in therapy that it is possible to drop the mask he has been wearing, and becomemore genuinely himself. A husband finds himself becoming furiously angry with his wife, and expressing this anger, where before he had maintained--or thought he had mainmined--a calm and obiective attitude toward her behavior. It is as though the map of expression of feelings has come to match more closely the territory of the actual emotional experience. Parents and children, husbands and wives, comecloser to expressing the feelings which really exist in them, rather than hiding their true W~T ARE TX~ IMPLIC~nO~S FOR Lr~qGP feelings from the other person, or from the other person and themselves. Perhaps an llinst~tiun or two would makethis point more clear. A young wife, Mrs. M., comes for counseling. Her complaint is that her husband, Bill, is very formal and reserved with her, that he doesn’t talk to her or share his thinking with her, is inconsiderate, that they are sexually incompatible and rapidly growing apart. As she talks out her attitudes the picture changes rather drastically. She expresses the deep guilt feeling which she has regarding her life before her marriage, when she had affairs with a numberof men, mostly married men. She realizes that though with most people she is a gay and spontaneous person, with her husband she is stiff, controlled, lacking in spontaneity. She also sees herself as demanding that he be exactly what she wishes him to be. At this point counseling is interrupted by the counselor’s absence from the city. She continues to write to the counselor expressing her feelings, and adding, "If I could only say these things to him (her husband) could be myself at hom~But what would that do to his trust in people? Wouldyou find me repulsive if you were my husband and learned the truth? I wish I were a ’nice gal’ instead of a ’Babe.’ l’v© made such a mess of things." This is followed by a letter from which a lengthy quotation seems justified. She tells how irritable she has been--how disagreeable she was whencompanydropped in one evening. After they left I was still feeling "I felt like a louse for behaving so badly .... sullen, guilty, angry at myself and Bill--and just about as blue as they come. "So, I decided to do what Fve been really wanting to do and putting off because I felt it was more than I could expect from any man--to tell Bill just what was making me act that terrible way. It was even harder than telling you -- and that was hard enough. I couldn’t tell it in such minute detail but I did manageto get out some of those sordid feelings about my parents and then even more about those ’damn’ men- The nicest thing I’ve ever heard him say was ’Well, maybe I can help you there’--when speaking of my parenm And he was very accepting of the things I had done~ I told him how I felt so inadequate in so manysituations--because 2 Implications of Client-Centered Therapy 317 I have never been allowed to do so manythings--even to know howto play cards. Wetalked, discussed, and really got down deep into so manyof both our feelings. I didn’t tell him as completely about the men-- their names, but I did give him an idea of about howmany. Well, he was so understanding and things have cleared up so muchthat I TRUSTHIM. I’m not afraid now m tell him those silly little illogical feelings that keep popping into my head. And if I’m not afraid then maybesoon those silly things will stop popping. The other evening whenI wrote to you I was almost ready to pull out- I even thought of just leaving toga. (Escaping the whole affair.) But I realized that I’d just keep running from it and not be happy until it was faced. Wetalked over children and though we’ve decided to wait until Bill is closer to finishing school, I’m happy with this arrangement. Bill feels as I do about the things we want to do for our children-- and most important the things we don’t want to do to them. So if you don’t get any more desperate sounding letters, you knowthings are going along as okay as can be expected. "Now, I’m wondering-- have you -known all along that that was the only thing I could do to bring Bill and me closer? That was the one thing I kept telling myself wouldn’t be fair to Bill. I thought it would ruin his faith in me and in everyone. I had a barrier so big between Bill and me that I felt he was almost a stranger. The only way I pushed myself to do it was to realize that if I didn’t at least try his response to the things that were bothering me, it wouldn’t be fair to him -- to leave him without giving him a chance to prove that he could be trusted. He proved even more than that to me- that he’s been downin hell too with his feelings--about his parents, and a good many people in general." I believe this letter needs no comment. It simply means to me that as she had experienced in therapy the satisfaction of being herself, of voicing her deep feelings, it becameimpossible for her to behave differently with her husband. She found that she had to be and express her owndeepest feelings, even if this seemedto risk her marriage. Another element in the experience of our clients is a somewhat subtle one. They find that, as in this instance, expression of feelings 318 W~TAxE ~ Ru, x~cs~oss mi LrnsG? is a deeply satisfying thing, where formerly it has nearly always seemed destructive and disastrous. The difference seems to be due to this fact. Whena person is living behind a front, a faerie, his unexpressed feelings pile up to some explosion point, and are then apt to be triggered off by some specific incident. But the feelings which sweep over the person and are expressed at such a time -- in a temper storm, in a deep depression, in a flood of self-pity, and the like--often have an unfortunate effect on all concerned because they are so inappropriate to the specific situation and hence seem so unreasonable. The angry flare-up over one annoyancein the rehtionship may actually be the pent-up or denied feelings resulting from dozens of such situations. But in the context in which it is expressed it is unreasonable and hence not understood. Here is where therapy helps to break a vicious circle. As the client is able to pour out, in all their accumulated anguish, fury, or despair, the emotions which he has been feeling, and as he accepts these feelings as his own, they lose their explosiveness. Hence he is more able to express, in any specific family relationship, the feelings aroused by that rehtionship. Since they do not carry such an overload from the past, they are more appropriate, and more likely to be understood. Gradually the individual finds himself expressing his feelings whenthey occur, not at some muchlater point after they have burned and festered in him. Rrtaa~ossmps CANB~ Lw~os A REALBAsra There is another effect which counseling seems to have on the way our clients experience their family rehtionships. The client discovers, often to his great surprise, that a relationship can be lived on the basis of the real feelings, rather than on the basis of a defensive pretense. There is a deep and comforting significance to this, as we have already seen in the case of Mrs. M. To discover that feelings of shameand anger and annoyancecan be expressed, and that the rehtionship still survives, is reassuring. To find that one can express tenderness and sensitivity and fearfulness and yet not be betrayed- this is a deeply strengthening thing. It seems that part of the reason this works out constructively is that in therapy the individual learns to recognize and express his feelings as his own Implications of Client-Centered Therapy 31~ feelings, not as a fact about another person. Thus, to say to one’s spouse "What you are doing is all wrong," is fikely to lead only to debate. But to say "I feel very muchannoyed by what you’re dohag," is to state one fact about the speaker’s feelings, a fact which no one can deny. It no longer is an accusation about another, but a leering which exists in oneself. "You are to blame for my feelings of inadequacy" is a debatable point, but "I feel inadequate when you do thus and so" simply contributes a real fact about the relationship. But it is not only at the verbal level that this operates. The person who accepts his own feelings within himself, finds that a relationship can be lived on the basis of these real feeling~ Let meillusxrate this with a series of excerpts from the recorded interviews with MmS. Mrs. S. lived with her ten year old daughter and her seventy year old mother, whodominatedthe household by her "poor health." Mrs. S. was controlled by her mother, and unable to control her daughter, Carol. She felt resentful of her mother, but could not express this, because "I have felt guilty all mylife. I grew up feeling guilty because everything that I did I felt was a... in some way affecting mymother’s health.... In fact, a few years ago, it came to the point where I was having dreams at night about.., shaking ray mother and... I’d... I got the feeling that I just wanted to push her out of the way. And. . . I can understand howCarol might feel. She doesn’t dare.., and neither do I." Mrs. S. knows that most people think she would be much better off if she left her mother, but she cannot. "I knowthat if I do leave her, that I couldn’t possibly be happy, I’d be so worried about her. And I’d feel so badly about leaving a poor old lady alone." As she complains about the extent to which she is dominated and controlled, she begins to see the part she is playing, a cowardly part. "I feel that my hands are tied. Perhaps I’m at fault.., more than mother is~ In fact I know I am, but I’ve sort of becomea cowardwhere mother’s concerned. I’ll do anything to avoid one of the scenes that she puts on about little things." As she understands herself better she comesto an inward conclusion to try to live in the rehtiouship according to what she be- 32O W~TA~ ~ I~z~.no~vs,on Lye, ca? lieves is right, rather than in terms of her mother’s wishes. She reports this at the beginning of an interview. "Well, I’ve madea stupendous discovery, that perhaps it’s been my fault entirely in overcompensating to mother.., in other words, spoiling her. So I madeup mymindlike I do every morning, but I think this time it’s gonna work, that I would try to... oh, to he calm and quiet, and.., if she does go into one of her spells, to just more or less ignore it as you would a child who throws a tantrum iust to get attention. So I tried it= And she got angry over some little thing. Andshe jumped up from the table and went into her room. Well, I didn’t rush in and say, oh, I’m sorry, and beg her to come back, and I simply just ignored it. So in a few minutes, why, she came back and sat downand was a little sulky but she was over it. So I’m going to try that for a while and...." Mrs. S. realizes clearly that the basis for her new behavior is that she has comegenuinely to accept her own feelings toward her mother. She says, "Well, why not face it? You see, I’ve been feeling so horrible, and thinking what a horrible person I was to resent my mother. Well, let’s just say, okay, I resent her; and I’m sorry; but let’s face it and I’ll try to makethe best of it." As she accepts herself more she becomesmuchmore able to meet some of her own needs as well as those of her mother. "There’s a lot of things that I’ve wanted to do for years and that I’m just going to start to do. Now,mother can be alone till ten o’clock at night there. She has a telephone by her bed and.., if a fire starts or something, there are neighbors, or if she becomesill ¯.. so I’m going to take some night courses through the public schools you know, and I’m going to do a lot of things that I’ve wanted to do all my life, and have sort of been a martyr in staying homeresenting it... that I had to, and thinking, oh, well, and not doing it. Well, I’m going to now. And I think after the first time I go, why, she’ll be all right." Her new found feelings are soon put to a test in the relationship with her mother. "Mymother had a very severe heart attack the other day and I said, well, you’d better go to the hospital and ... and you certainly need hospitalization; and I whippedher down to the doctor, and the doctor said her heart was fine and she oughta Impllc~iolu of Cllera-Centered Therapy 321 get out and have a little fun. So she’s going to visit a friend for a week and see the shows and have a good time. So . . . actually whenit came down to getting ready to go to the hospital, how cruel I am to her by contradicting her in front of Carol and all that sort of thing, why, then she backed downand when she was faced with the fact that she.., and her heart’s just as strong as a bull’s, why, she thought she might as well use it to have somefun with. So that’s fine. Working out fine." Up to this point it might seem as though the rehtionship had improved for Mrs. S., but not for her mother. There is, however, another side to the picture. Somewhatlater MmS. says "I still am very, very sorry for mother. I would hate to be like she is. And another thing, you know, I just got to the point where I just hated mother; I couldn’t stand to touch her, or... I mean.., brush against her or something. I don’t mean, just for the moment,while I was angry or anything. But... I’ve also found myself, oh, feeling a little affectionate toward her; two or three times I’ve gone in without even thinking, kissed her goodnlght, and I used to just holler from the door. And ... I’ve been feeling kindlier toward her; that resentment that I’ve had is going, along with the hold that she had over me, you see. So... that, I noticed that yesterday whenI was helping her get ready and so forth; I fixed her hair and there was the longest time I couldn’t stand to touch her; and I was doing her hair in pin curls and so forth; and I... it suddenly came to me, well, now this doesn’t bother me a bit; in fact it’s kind of fun." These excerpts seem to me to portray a pattern of change in family relationships which is very familiar to us. Mrs. S. feels, though she hardly dares admit it even to herself, resentful of her mother and as though she had no rights of her own. It seems as though nothing but difficulty could result from letting these feelings exist openly in the relationship. Yet as she tentatively permits them to enter the situation she finds herself acting with more assurance, more integrity. The relationship improves rather than deteriorates. Most surprising of all, whenthe relationship is lived on the basis of the real feelings, she finds that resentment and hate are not the only feelings she has toward her mother. Fondness, affection and enjoyment are also feelings which enter the rehtiomhip. It seems clear 322 W~AT A~ T~ IMPLICATIONS lrOR LrvmQ? that there maybe momentsof discord, dislike, and anger between the two. But there will also be respect and understanding and liking. They seemto have learned what manyother clients have also learned, that a reladonship does not have to be lived on a basis of pretense, but can be lived on the basis of the fluctuadng variety of feelings which aetually exist. It mayseem, from the illnstradons I have chosen, that it is only negative feelings which are difllcult to express or live. This is far from true. Mr. K., a young professional man, found it fully as diffi~flt to discover the positive feelings which lay beneath his fa~de, as the negative. A brief excerpt will indicate the changed quality of his relationship with Iris three-year-old daughter. He says, "The thing that I was thinking about as I rode down ~aere was--howdifferently I see our little gitl--I was playing with her this morning--and--wejust, ab, well- whyis it so hard for me to get words out now? This was a really wonderful ¯ experience-- very warm,and it was a happy and pleasant thing, and it seems that I saw and felt her so close to me. Here’s what I think is significant--before, I could talk about Judy. I could say positive things about her and funny little things she’d do and just talk about her as though I were and felt like a real happy father, but there was some unreal quality.., as though I was just saying these ¢ahings because I should be feeling this stuff and this is the way a father should talk about his daughter but somehowthis wasn’t really true because I did have these negative and mixed up feelings about her. NowI do think she is the most wonderful kid in the world." T: "Before, you felt as though ’I should be a happy father’ this morningyou are a happy father...." "It certainly felt that way this morning. She just rolled around on the bed.. ¯ and then she asked me if I wanted to go to sleep again and I said okay and then she said well, I’ll go get mybhnkets ... and then she told me a story.., about three stories in one... all jumbled up and . . . it just felt like this is what I really want ¯ .. I want to have this experience. It felt that I was . . . I felt grown up, I guess. I felt that I was a man . . . now this sounds strange, but it did feel as though I was a growunpresponsible loving father, whowas big enough, and serious enough, and also happy Impllc~ions of Cllent-Centered Therapy ;23 enough to be the father of this child. Whereasbefore I did fed weakand maybealmost undeserving, ineligible m be that irapor~nr~ because it is a very important thing to be a father." He has found it possible to accept positive feelings toward h~self as a good father, and to fully accept this warmlove for his ~He girl. He no longer has to pretend he loves her, fearful that some different feeUngmaybe lurking underneath. I think it will not surprise you that shortly after this he told how he could be much more free in expressing anger and annoyance at his little daughter, also. He is learning that the feelings which exist are good enough to live by. They do not have to be coated with a veneer. IMPROVEMEICr IN Two-WA~ COMMtr~cAmos Experience in therapy seems to bring about another change in the way our clients live in their family relationships. They learn something about how to initiate and maintain real two-way communication. To understand another person’s thoughts and feelings thoroughly, with the meanin~they have for him, and to be thoroughly understood by this other person in return--this is one of the most rewarding of human experiences, and all too rare. Individuals who have come to us for therapy often report their pleasure in discovering that such genuine communicationis possible with members of their own families. In part this seems to be due, quite directly, to their experience of communicationwith the counselor. It is such a relief, such a blessed relaxation of defenses, to find oneself understood, that the individual wishes to create this at~nosphere for others. To find, in the therapeutic relationship that one’s most awful thoughts, one’s most bizarre and abnormal feelings, one’s most ridiculous dreams and hopes, one’s most evil behaviors, can all be understood by another, is a tremendously releasing experience. One begins to see it as a resource he could extend to otherg But there appears to be an even more fundamental reason why these clients can understand membersof their families. Whenwe are living behind a facade, when we are trying to act in ways that are not in accord with our feelings, then we dare not listen freely W~T A~ ~ IM~IcA~o~ ~oa Lwma? to another. Wemust always have our guard up, lest he pierce the pretense of our facade. But whena client is riving in the way I have been describing, when he tends m express his real feelings in the situation in which they occur, when his family relationships are lived on the basis of the feelings which actually exist, then he is. no longer defensive and he can really listen to, and understand, ano other memberof his family. He can let himself see how life appears to this other person. Somethingof what I amsaying maybe illustrated from the experience of MrgS., the womanquoted in the preceding section. In a followup contaCt after the conclusion of her interviews, Mrs. S. was asked to give some of her own reactions to her experience. She says, "I didn’t feel at first that it was counseling. You know? I thought, well, I’m just talking, but.., by giving it a little thought, I realize that it is counseling and of the very best kind, because I’ve had advice, and excellent advice from doCtors and family and friends and.., it’s never worked. AndI think in order to reach people, you can’t put up barriers and things of that sort, because then you don’t get the true reaction .... But I’ve given it a great deal of thought and I’m sort of working it with Carol a little bit now(hughing) or trying to, you know. And . . . grandma says to her, how can you be so mean to your poor sick old grandmother, you know. AndI just knowhowCarol feels. She just wants to hit her because she’s so terrible! But I sort of haven’t been saying too much to Carol or trying to guide her. But I’ve been trying to draw her out.., let her feel that I’m with her and behind her, no matter what she does. Andlet her tell mehowshe feels, and her little reactions to things, and it’s working out fine. She has told me, oh, grandma’s been old and sick for so long, mother. AndI said, yes. AndI don’t condemnher nor do I praise her, and so she is, just in this short time beginning to... oh, get little things off her mind and.., without my probing or trying to ¯ ¯ ¯ so it’s sort of working on her. And it seems to be working on mother a little bit too." I think we maysay of Mrs. S. that having accepted her own feelings, and having been more willing to express them and to live in them, she nowfinds more willingnes~ on her own part to understand Implications of Client-Centered Therapy 325 her daughter and her mother, and to feel empathlcally their own reactions to life. She is sufficiently free of defensiveness to be able to listen in an accepting manner, and to sense the way life feels to them. This kind of developmentseems characteristic of the change which occurs in the family life of our clienm WILLINGNESS FORANOTHER TOBE SEPARATE There is one final tendency which we have noticed and which I would like to describe. It is quite noticeable that our clients tend in the direction of permitting each memberof the family to have his ownfeelings and to be a separate person. This mayseem a strange statement, but it is actually a most radical step. Manyof us are perhaps unaware of the tremendous pressure we tend to put on our wives, our husbands, our children, to have the same feelings we do. It is often as though we said, "If you want me to love you, then you must have the same feelings I do. If I feel your behavior is bad, you must feel so too. "If I feel a certain goal is desirable, you must feel so too." Nowthe tendency which we see in our clients is the opposite of this. There is a willingness for the other person to have different feelings, different values, different goals. In short, there is a wiUinguess for him to be a separate person, It is my belief that this tendency develops as the person discovers that he can trust his own feelings and reactions--that his own deep impulses are not destructive or catastrophic, and that he himself need not be guarded, but can meet life on a real baslg As he thus learns that he can trust himself, with his own uniqueness, he becomeS more able to trust his wife, or his child, and to accept the unique feelings and values which exfist in this other person. Somethingof what I meanis contained in letters from a woman and her husband. They are friends of mine and had obtained a copy of a book I had written because they were interested in what I was doing. But the effect of the book seemed to be similar to therapy. The wife wrote me and included in her letter a paragraph giving her reactions. "Lest you think that we are completely frivolous, we have been reading Client-Centered Therapy. I have almost finished it. Most of the usual things you say about books 326 W~T ARE ~ I~PUCaTIONS ~a I~mo~ don’t apply, at least for me. In fact it was pretty close to a counseling experience. It set me to thinking about some of the unsatisfactory relationships in our family, particularly my attitude toward Phillip (her 14-year-old son). I realized that I hadn’t shown him any real love for a long time, because I was so resentful of his apparent indifference in trying to measure up to any of the standards that I have always thought were important. Since I have stopped taking most of the responsibility for his goals, and have responded to him as a person, as I always have to Nancy, for instance, it is surprising what changes have appeared in his attitudes. Not earth-shaking-- hut a heartwarming beginning. Weno longer heckle him about his school work, and the other day he volunteered that he had gotten an S w satisfactory grade--on a math exam. The fL,’st time this year." A few months hter I heard from her husband. "Youwouldn’t recognize phil .... While he is hardly garrulous, he is not nearly the sphinx that he was, and he is doing much better in school, although we do not expect him to be graduated cure hude. You should take a great deal of credit for his improvement, because he began to blossom whenI finally began to trust him to be himself, and ceased trying to mold him into the glorified image of his father at a similar age. Oh to undo our past errors[" This concept of trusting the individual to be himself has cometo have a great deal of meaning to me. I sometimes fantasy about what it would meanif a child were treated in this fashion from the first. Supposea child were permitted to have his ownunique feelingssuppose he never had to disown his feelings in order to be loved. Suppose his parents were free to have and express their own unique feelings, which often would be different from his, and often different between themselve~ I like to think of all the meanings that such an experience would have. It would mean that the child would grow up respecting himself as a unique person. It would meanthat even whenhis behavior had to be thwarted, he could retain open "ownership" of his feelings. It would mean that his behavior would be a realistic balance, taking into account his ownfeelings and the knownand open feelings of others. He would, I believe, be a responsible and self-directing individual whowouldnever need to Implications of Client-Centered Therapy 327 conceal his feelings from himself, who would never need to live behind a faqade. He would be relatively free of the maladjustments which cripple so many of u~ THEGENF~V,L PICTURE If I have been able correctly to discern the trends in the experience of our clients, then client-centered therapy seems to have a number of implications for family life. Let me attempt to restate these in somewhatmore general form. It appears that an individual finds it satisfying in the long run to express any strong or persistent emotional attitudes in the situation in which they arise, to the person with whomthey are concerned, and to the depth to which they exist. This is more satisfying than refusing to admit that such feelings exist, or permitting them to pile up to an explosive degree, or directing them toward some situation other than the one in which they arose. It seems that the individual discovers that it is more satisfying in the long run to live a given family relationship on the basis of the real interpersonal feelings which exist, rather than living the rehtionship on the basis of a pretense. A part of this discovery is that the fear that the relationship will be destroyed if the true feelings are admitted, is usually unfounded, particuhrly when the feelings are expressed as belonging to oneself, not as stating something about the other person. Our clients find that as they express themselves more freely, as the surface character of the relationship matches more closely the fluctuating attitudes which underlie it, they can lay aside some of their defenses and truly listen to the other person. Often for the first time they begin to understand how the other person feels, and why he feels that way. Thus mutual understanding begins to pervade the interpersonal interaction. Finally, there is an increasing willingness for the other person to be himself. As I am more willing to be myself, I find I am more ready to permit you to be yourself, with all that that hnplies. This meansthat the family circle tends in the direction of becominga numberof separate and unique persons with individual goaLs and values, but bound together by the real feelings--positive and 328 W~T ARE THE I~.~ClCA~O~S 7OZ Lsv~m? negative--which ex/g: between thcr~ and by the sat~fFing bond of mutual understanding of at least a portion of each other’s private worlds. It is in these ways, I believe, that a therapy which results in the individual becomingmore fully and more deeply himself, results also in his Ending greater satisfaction in realistic family relationships which likewise promote the same end- that of facilitating each memberof the family in the process of discovering, and becoming, himself. 17 Dealing With Breakdowns in Communication-Interpersonal and Intergroup In point of time, this paper is the earliest in the book. It was ~ritten in 19H for presentation at the Centennial Conference on Communicationsat Northwestern University, cvbere it ~:as given the title, "Communication:Its Blocking and Its Facilitation." It has since been reprinted a half-dozen times, by different groups and in different journals, including the Harvard Business Revie~ and ETC, the journal of the Society for General Semantics. /lltbougb some of its illustrations noqv appear a bit dated, l am including it because it makes what I feel is an important point regarding group tensions, national and international. The suggestion regarding Russian-U.S. tensions appeared bopelessiy idealistic at that time. NowI believe it would be accepted by manyas good sense. IT MAY CURIOUS a person whose professional effort SEEM is devoted to that psychotherapy shouldwhole be interested in problems of communication. What relationship is there be~,een 329 Wx-~,TA.~ T~ I~ICATXOm tea Llvm~ provid~g therapeutic help to individuals with emotional mahdjusrmanrs and the concern of this conference with obstacles to communication? Actually the rehtionsl~p is very close indeed. The whole task of psychotherapy is the task of dealing with a failure in communication.The emotionally mahdjusted person, the "neurotic," is in di~culty first, because communicationwithin himself has broken down, and second because, as a result of this, his cornmunication with others has been damaged.If this sounds somewhat strange to you, then let me put it in other terms. In the "neurotic" individual, parts of himself wh/ch have been termed unconscious, or repressed, or denied to awareness, becomeblocked off so that they no longer communicatethemselves to the conscious or managing part of himself. As long as this is true, there are distortions in the way he communicateshimself to others, and so he suffers both within himself, and in his interpersonal relations. The task of psychotherapy is to help the person achieve, through a special rehtionship with a therapist, good communicationwithin himself. Once this is achieved he can communicatemore freely and more effectively with others. Wemaysay then that psychotherapy is good communication, within and between men. Wemay also turn that statement around and it will still be true. Goodcommunication, free communication, within or between men, is always thera~utic. It is, then, from a background of experience with communication in counseling and psychotherapy, that I want to present to you tonight two ideag I wish to state what I believe is one of the major factors in blocking or impeding communication, and then I wish to present what in our experience has proven to be a very important way of improving or facilitating communication. I would like to propose, as an hypothesis for consideration, that the major barrier to mutual interpersonal communicationis our very natural tendency to judge, to evaluate, to approve or disapprove, the statement of the other person, or the other group. Let meillustrate my meaning with some. very simple examples. As you leave the meeting tonight, one of the statements you are likely to hear is, ’q didn’t like that man’s talk." Nowwhat do you respond? Almost invariably your reply will be either approval or disapproval of tim Breakdownsin Conmmnlcatlon 331 attitude expressed. Either you respond, ’q didn’t either. I thought it was terrible," or else you tend to reply, "Oh, I thought it was really good." In other words, your primary reaction is to evaluate what has just been said to you, to evaluate it from your point of view, your ownframe of reference. Or take another example. Suppose I say with some feeling, ’~I think the Republicans are behaving in waysthat show a lot of good sound sense these days," what is the response that arises in your mind as you listen? The overwhelminglikelihood is that it will be evaluafive. Youwill find yourself agreeing, or disagreeing, or making some judgment about me such as "He must be a conservative," or "He seems solid in his thinking." Or let us take an illustration from the international scene. Russia says vehemently, "The treaty with Japan is a war plot on the part of the United States." Werise as one person to say "That’s a lie!" This last illustration brings in another element connected with my hypothesis. Although the tendency to makeevaluations is common in almost all interchange of language, it is very much heightened in those situations where feelings and emotions are deeply involved. So the stronger our feelings the more likely it is that there will be no mutual element in the communication.There will be just two ideas, two feelings, two judgments, missing each other in p~,chological space. I’m sure you recognize this from your ownexperience. When you have not been emotionally involved yourself, and have listened to a heated discussion, you often go away thinking, "Well, they actually weren’t talking about the same thing." And they were not. Each was makinga judgment, an evaluation, from his ownframe of reference. There was really nothing which could be called communication in any genuine sense. This tendency to react to any emOtionally meaningful statement by forming an evaluation of it from our ownpoint of view, is, I repeat, the major barrier to interpersonal communication. But is there any way of solving this problem, of avoiding this barrier? I feel that we are making exciting progress toward this ~al and I would like to present it as simply as I can. Real communication occurs, and this evaluative tendency is avoided, whenwe listen with understanding. What does this mean? It means to see the ea~pressed 332 WmLTARE Tm~ L~eLICATmNS Fo~t Lzv’ma} idea and attitude from the other person’s point of view, to sense how it feels to him, to achieve his frame of reference in regard to the thing he is talking about. Stated so briefly, this may sound absurdly simple, but it is nor. It is an approach which we have found extremely potent in the field of psychotherapy. It is the most effective agent we knowfor altering the basic personality structure of an individual, and improving his rehtiouships and his communicationswith others. If I can listen to what he can tell me, if I can understand howit seems to him, if I can see its personal meaning for him, if I can sense the emotional flavor which it has for him, then I will be releasing potent forces of change in him. If I can really understand howhe hates his father, or hates the university, or hates communists-- if I can catch the flavor of his fear of insanity, or his fear of atom bombs, or of Russia -- it will be of the greatest help to him in altering those very hatreds and fears, and in establishing realistic and harmoniousrelationships with the very people and situations toward which he has felt hatred and fear. Weknow from our research that such empathic understanding-- understanding ~tyitb a person, not about him -- is such an effective approach that it can bring about maior changes in personality. Someof you maybe feeling that you listen well to people, and that you have never seen such resnlt~ The chances are very great indeed that your listening has not been of the type I have described. Fortunately I can suggest a little hboratory experiment which you can try to test the quality of your understanding. The next time you get into an argument with your wife, or your friend, or with a small group of friends, inst stop the discussion for a momentand for an experiment, institute this rule. ’~Each person can speak up for himself only after he has first restated the ideas and feelings of t~he previous speaker accurately, and to that speaker’s satisfaction." You see what this wouldmean. It wouldsimply meanthat before presenting your ownpoint of view, it would be necessary for you to really achieve the other speaker’s frame of reference- to understand his thoughts and feelings so well that you could summarize them for ~ Soundssimple, doesn’t it? But if you try it you will discover it is one of the most di~cult things you have ever tried to do. However,once you have been able to see the other’s point of Breakdownsin Communication 333 view, your own commentSwill have to be drastically rev~d. You will also find the emotion going out of the discussion, the differences being reduced, and those differences which remain being of a rational and understandable sort. Can you imagine what this kind of an approach would meanif it were projected into larger areas? Whatwould happen to a hbormanagementdispute if it was conducted in such a way that hbor, without necessarily agreeing, could accurately state management’s point of view in a way that managementcould accept; and management, without approving labor’s stand, could state labor’s case in a way that labor agreed was accurate? It would meanthat real coraanunication was established, and one could practically guarantee that somereasonable solution would be reached. If then this way of approach is an effective avenue to good comsuunication and good relationships, as I amquite sure you will agree if you try the experiment I have mentioned, why is it not more widely tried and used? I will try to list the difficulties which keep it from being utilized. In the first place it takes courage, a quality which is not too widespread. I am indebted to Dr. S. I. Hayakawa,the semanticist, for pointing out that to carry on psychotherapy in this fashion is to take a very real risk, and that courage is required. If you really understand another person in this way, if you are willing to enter his private world and see the way life appears to him, without any attempt to makeevaluative judgments, you run the risk of behlg changed yourself. Youmight see it his way, you might find yourself influenced in your attitudes or your personality. This risk of being changed is one of the most frightening prospects most of us can face. If t enter, as fully as I am able, into the private world of a neurotic or psychotic individual, isn’t there a risk that I might become lost in that world? Most of us are afraid to take that risk. Or if we had a Russian communistspeaker here tonight, or Senator Joseph McCarthy, how manyof us would dare to try to see the world from each of these points of view? The great majority of us could not listen; we would find ourselves compelled to evaluate, because listening would seem too dangerous. So the first requirement is courage, and we do not always have iL 334 WmT A~THEIM~ICArIONS TORLn,’~ But there is a second obstacle. It is just whenemotions are strongest that it is most di~icult to achieve the frame of reference of the other person or group. Yet this is the time the attitude is most needed, if communicationis to be established. Wehave not found this to be an insuperable obstacle in our experience in psychotherapy. A third party., whois able to lay aside his ownfeelings and evaluations, can assist gready by listening with understanding to each person or group and clarifying the views and attitudes each holds. We have found this very effective in small groups in which contradictory or antagonistic attitudes exist. Whenthe parties to a dispute realize that they are being understood, that someone sees how the situation seems to them, the statements grow less exaggerated and less defensive, and it is no longer necessary to maintain the attitude, "I am 100 per cent tight and you are 100 per cent wrong." The influence of such an understanding catalyst in the group permits the membersto comecloser and closer to the objective truth involved in the relationship. In this way mutual communication is established and some type of agreement becomes much more possible. So we maysay that though heightened emotions makeit muchmore difficult to understand ,with an opponent, our experience makes it clear that a neutral, understanding, catalyst type of leader or therapist can overcomethis obstacle in a small group. This last phrase, however, suggests another obstacle to utilizing the approach I have described. Thus far all our experience has been with small face-to-face groups--groups exhibiting industrial tensionS, religious tensions, racial tensions, and therapy groups in which manypersonal tensions are presen~ In these small groups our experience, confirmed by a limited amount of research, shows that a listening, empathic approach leads to improved communication, to greater acceptance of others and by others, and to attitudes which are more positive and more problem-sulving in nature. There is a decrease in defensiveness, in exaggerated statements, in evaluative and critical behavior. But these findings are from small groups. Whatabout trying to achieve understanding between larger groups that are geographically remote? Or between face-to-face groups whoare not speaking for themselves, but simply as representatives of others, like the delegates at the United Nations? Frankly we do Breakdo~rasin Conmmnication 335 not knowthe answers to these questions. I 3dieve the situation might be put this way. As social scientists we have a tentative testtube solution of the problem of breakdownin communication. But to confirm the validity of this test-tube solution, and to adapt it to the enormousproblems of communicationbreakdownbetween classes, groups, and nations, would involve additional funds, much more research, and creative thinking of a high order. Even with our present limited knowledge we can see some steps which might be taken, even in large groups, to increase the amount of listening q~itb, and to decrease the amount of evaluation about. To be imaginative for a moment,let us suppose that a therapeutically oriented international group went to the Russian leaders and said, "Wewant to achieve a genuine understanding of your views and even more important, of your attitudes and feelings, toward the United States. Wewill summarizeand resummasizethese views and feelings if necessary, until you agree that our description represents the situation as it seems to you." Then suppose they did the same thing with the leaders in our owncountry. If they then gave the widest possible distribution to these two views, with the feelings dearly described but not expressed in name-calling, might not the effect be very great? It would not guarantee the type of understanding I have been describing, but it would makeit much more possible. Wecan understand the feelings of a person whohates us muchmore readily whenhis attitudes are accurately described to us by a neutral third party, than we can whenhe is shaking his fist at us. But even to describe such a first step is to suggest another obstade to this approach of understanding. Our civilization does not yet have enoughfaith in the social sciences to utilize their findings. The opposite is true of the physical scienceg During the war whena test-tobe solution was found to the problem of synthetic rubber, millions of dollars and an army of talent was turned loose on the problem of using that finding. If synthetic rubber could be made ha milligrams, it could and would be madein the thousands of torts. Andit was. But in the social science realm, if a way is found of facilitating communication and mutual understanding in small groups, there is no guarantee that the finding will be utilized. It 336 WF.AT ARE T~ IIVL~XeaTIONS FOX LSV~vGP may be a generation or more before the moneyand the brains will be turned loose to exploit that/inding. In dosing, I would like to summarizethis small-scale solution to the problem of barriers in communication, and to point out certain of its characteristics, o I have said that our research and experience to date would make it appear that breakdownsin communication, and the evaluative tendency which is the maior barrier to communication, can be avoided. The solution is provided by creating a situation in which each of the different parties comesto understand the other from the other’s point of view. This has been achieved, in practice, even whenfeelings run high, by the influence of a person whois willing to understand each point of view empathieally, and whothus acts as a catalyst to precipitate further understanding. This procedure has important characteristics It can be initiated by one party, without waiting for the other to be ready. It can even be initiated by a neutral third person, prodding he can gain a minimumof cooperation from one of the parties. This procedure can deal with the insincerities, the defensive exaggerations, the lies, the "false fronts" which characterize almost every failure in communicatiorLThese defensive distortions drop away with astonishing speed as people fred that the only intent is to understand, not iudge. This approach leads steadily and rapidly toward the discovery of the truth, toward a realistic appraisal of the obiective barriers to communication-The dropping of somedefensiveness by one party leads to further dropping of defensiveness by the other party, and truth is thus approached. This procedure gradually achieves mutual communication. Mutual communication tends to be pointed toward solving a problem rather than toward attacking a person or group. It leads to a situation in which I see howthe problem appears to yon, as well as to me, and you see howit appears to me, as well as to you. Thus accurately and realistically defined, the problem is almost certain to yield to intelligent attack, or if it is in part insoluble, it will be comfortably accepted as such. This then appears to be a test-tube solution to the breakdownof Breakdo~m Cormm~ic~io~ 337 communicationas it occurs in small group~ Can we take this small scale answer, investigate it further, refine it, develop it and apply it to the tragic and well-nigh fatal failures of communicationwhich threaten the very existence of our modemworld? It seems to me that this is a po~bility and a challenge which we should explore. 18 A Tentative Formulation of a General Law of Interpersonal Relationships During a recent summer I gave some a theoretical problem which had tantalized me:thought Woulditto be possible to formulate, in one hypothesis, the elements which make any relationship either growth-facilitating or the reverse. I worked out a short document for myself, and bad occasion to try it out on a workshop group and some industrial executives with whomI was conferring. It seemed to be of interest to all, but most stimulating to the industrial leaders who discussed it pro and con in terms of such problems as: supervisor-supervisee relationships; labor-managementrelatinnsbips; executive training; interpersonal relations amongtop management. I regard this as a highly tentative document~ and am not at all sure of its adequacy. I include it because manywho bare read it have found it provocative, and because publication of it may inspire re= search studies ~hicb would begin to test its vah’dity. I EAVE/~,UtlqY TIMESMIRED myself howour learnings in the field of psychotherapy apply to humanrelationships in general. During recent years I have thought muchabout this issue and attempted to 338 ,4 General La~o o~ Interpersonal Relatlonsbipr 339 state a theory of interpersonal relationships as a part of the larger structure of theory in client-centered therapy (1, Sec. IV). This present documentundertakes to spell out, in a somewhatdifferent way, one of the aspects of that theory. It endeavors to look at a perceived underlying orderliness in all humanrelationships, an order which determines whether the relationship will makefor the growth, enhancement, openness, and developmentof both individuals or whether it will makefor inhibition of psychological growth, for defensiveness and blockage in both parties. THECONCEPT OFCONGRUENCE Fundamentalto muchof what I wish to say is the term "congruence." This construct has been developed to cover a group of phenomenawhich seemimportant to therapy and to all interpersonal interaction. I would like to try to define it. Congruenceis the term we have used to indicate an accurate matching of experiencing and awareness. It may be still further extended to cover a matching of experience, awareness, and communication. Perhaps the simplest exampleis an infan~ If he is experiencing hunger at the physiological and visceral level, then his awareness appears to match this experience, and his communication is also congruent with his experience. He is hungry and dissatisfied, and this is true of him at all levels. He is at this momentintegrated or unified in being hungry. On the other hand if he is satiated and content this too is a unified congruence, similar at the visceral level, the level of awareness and the level of communication. He is one unified person all the way through, whether we tap his experience at the visceral level, the level of his awareness, or the level of communication. Probably one of the reasons why most people respond to infants is that they are so completely genuine, integrated or congruent. If an infant expresses affection or anger or contentment or fear there is no doubt in our minds that he is this experience, all the way through. He is transparently fearful or loving or hungry or whatever. For an exampleof incongruence we must turn to someonebeyond the stage of infancy. To pick an easily recognizable example take the man whobecomesangrily involved in a group discussion. His face flushes, his tone communicates anger, he shakes his finger W~T Amz TmZ I~UCATmNS l~a Lwn~G~ at his opponent. Yet whena friend says, ’%VeU,let’s not get angry about this," he replies, with evident sincerity and surprise, "I’m not angry! I don’t have any feeling about this at all! I was just pointing out the logical facts." The other menin the group break out in laughter at this statement. ~Vhat is happening here? It seems clear that at a physiological level he is experiencing auger. This is not matchedby his awarene~ Consciously he is not experiencing anger, nor is he communicating this (so far as he is consciously aware). There is a real incongruence between experience and awareness, and between experience and communication. Another point to be noted here is that his communicationis actually ambiguousand unclear. In its words it is a setting forth of logic and fact. In its tone, and in the accompanyinggestures, it is carrying a very different message--"I am angry at you." I believe this ambiguity or contradictoriness of communicationis always present when a person whois at that momentincongruent endeavors to communicate. Still another facet of the concept of incongruence is illustrated by this example. The individual himself is not a sound judge of his own degree of congruence. Thus the laughter of the group indicates a clear cousensual judgmentthat the manis experiencing anger, whether or not he thinks so. Yet in his ownawareness this is not true. In other words it appears that the degree of congruence cannot be evaluated by the person himself at that moment.Wemaymake progress in learning to measure it from an external frame of reference. Wehave also learned muchabout incongruence from the person’s ownability to recognize incongruence in himself in the past. Thus if the man of our example were in therapy, he might look back on this incident in the acceptant safety of the therapeutic hour and say, "I realize nowI was terribly angry at him, even though at the time I thought I was not." He has, we say, cometo recognize that his defensiveness at that momentkept him from being aware of his anger. One more examplewill portray another aspect of incongrucnee. Mrs. Brown, who has been stifling yawns and looking at her watch for hours, says to her hostc.~ on departing, "I enjoyed this evening d General Lava of Interpersonal Relationsbipr 341 so much. It was a delightful party." Here the incongruence is nut between experience and awareness. Mrs. Brownis well aware that she is bored. The incongruence is between awareness and communication. Thus it might be noted that whenthere is an incongruence between experience and awareness, it is usually spoken of as defensiveness, or denial to awareness. Whenthe incongruence is between awareness and communication it is usually thought of as falseness or deceit. There is an important corollary of the construct of congruence which is not at all obvious. It maybe stated in this way. If an individual is at this momententirely congruent, his actual physiological experience being accurately represented in his awareness, and his communicationbeing accurately congruent with his awareness, then his communication could never contain an expression of an external fact. If he was congruent he could not say, "That rock is hard"; "He is stupid"; "You are bad"; or "She is intelligent." The reason for this is that we never experience such "facts." Accurate awareness of experience would always be expressed as feelings, perceptions, meanings from an internal frame of reference. I never know that he is stupid or you are bad. I can only perceive that you seem this way to me. Likewise, strictly speaking I do not kno~ that the rock is hard, even though I may be very sure that I experience it as hard if I fall downon it. (And even then I can permit the physicist to perceive it as a very permeable mass of high-speed atoms and molecules.) If the person is thoroughly congruent then it is clear that all of his communicationwould necessarily be put in a context of personal perception. This has very important implications. As an aside it might be mentioned that for a person always to speak from a context of personal perception does not necessarily imply congruence, since any modeof expression may be used as a t3.’pc of defensiveness. Thus the person in a momentof congruence would necessarily communicatehis perceptions and feelings as being these, and not as being facts about another person or the outside World. The reverse does not necessarily hold, however. Perhaps I have said enough to indicate that this concept of congruence is a somewhatcomplexconcept with a numberof character- 342 WP.AT A~~ L~.r~iCA~o~,m ~ Ln’m~ istics and implications. It is not easily defined in operational terms, though some studies have been completed and others are in process which do provide crude operatioual indicators of what is being experienced, as distinct from the awareness of that experience. It is believed that further refinements are possible. To conclude our definition of this construct in a muchmore commonsenseway, I believe all of us tend to recognize congruence or incongruence in individuals with whomwe deal. With Someindividuals we realize that in most areas this person not only conscionsly means exactly what he says, but that his deepest feelings also match what he is expressing, whether it is anger or competitiveness or affection or cooperativenes~ Wefeel that "we knowexactly where he stun&." With another individual we recognize that what he is saying is almost certainly a front, a facade. Wewonderwhat he really feels. Wewonderif be knowswhat he feelg Wetend to be wary and cautions with such an individuaL Obvionsly then different individuals differ in their degree of congruence, and the sameindividual differs at different momentsin degree of congruence, depending on what he is experiencing and whether he can accept this experience in his awareness, or must defend himself against it. Rz~QCoN~agTOCOW--CAnON m I~aPZXSOt*~ RF2.A~ONSmPS Perhaps the significance of this concept for interpersonal interaction can be recognized if we makea few statements about a hypothetical Smith and Jones. I. Any communicationof Smith to Jones is markedby somede, gree of congruence in Smith. This is obvious from the above. 2. The greater the congruence of experience, awareness, and communication in Smith, the moreit is likely that Jones will experience it as a c/ear communication.I believe this has been adequately covered. If all the cues from speech, tone and gesture are unified because they spring from a congruence and unity in Smith, then there is muchless likelihood that these cues will have an ambiguous or unclear meaning to Jones. 3. Consequently, the more clear the communicationfrom Smith, the more Jones responds with clarity. This is simply saying that A General Law of Interpersonal Relationsblps ~.3 even though Jones might be quite incungment in his experiencing of the topic under discussion, nevertheless his response will have mOreclarity and congruence in it than if he had experienced Smith’s communicationas ambiguous. 4. The more that Smith is congruent in the topic about which they are communicating, the less he has to defend himself against in this area, and the moreable he is to listen accurately to Jones’ response. Putting it in other terms, Smith has expressed what he genuinely feels. He is therefore more free to listen. The less he is presenting a facade to he defended, the more he can listen accurately to what Jones is communicating. 5. But to this degree, then, Jones feels empathieally understood. He feels that in so far as he has expressed himself, (and whether this is defensively or congruendy) Smith has understood him pretty muchas he sees himself, and as he perceives the topic under consideration. 6. For Jones to feel understood is for him to experience positive regard for Smith. To feel that one is understood is to feel that one has madesome kind of a positive difference in the experience of another, in this case of Smith. 7. But to the degree that Jones (a) experiences Smith as congruent or integrated in this relationship; (b) experiences Smith having positive regard for him; (c) experiences Smith as being empathically understanding; to that degree the conditions of a therapeutic relationship are established. I have tried in another paper (2) to describe the conditions which our experience has led us to believe are necessary and sufficient for therapy, and will not repeat that description here. 8. To the extent that Jones is experiencing these characteristics of a therapeutic relationship, he finds himself experiencing fewer barriers to communication.Hencehe tends to communicatehimself moreas he is, morecongruently. Little by little his defensiveness decreases. 9. Having communicatedhimself more freely, with less of defensiveness, Jones is now more able to listen accurately, without a need for defensive distortion, to Smith’s further communication. This is a repetition of step 4, but nowin terms of Jones. 10. To the degree that Jones is able to listen, Smith now feels 344 W~T A~~ I~ica~oNs ~ L~n~a? e~mpathically understood (as in step 5 for Jones); experiences Jones’ positive regard (a parallel to step 6); and ~nds himself experiencing the relationship as therapeutic (in a way parallel to step 7). Thus Smith and Jones have to some degree becomereciprocally therapeutic for each other. 11. This meansthat to some degree the process of therapy occurs in each and that the outcomes of therapy w’fll to that same degree occur in each; change in personaiity in the direction of greater unity and integration; less conflict and more energy u~liT~ble for effective living; change in behavior in the direction of greater maturity. 12. The limiting element in this chain of events appears to be the introduction of threatening material. Thus if Jones in step 3 indudes in his more congruent response new material which is outside of the realm of Smith’s congruence, touching an area in which Smith is/ncongruent’ then Smith maynot be able to listen accurately, he defends himself against hearing what Jones is communicating, he responds with communicationwhich is ambiguous, and the whole process described in these steps begins to occur in reverse, A TENTATIVE STATEMENT OFA GENERAL LAW Taking all of the above into account, it seems possible to state it far more parsimoniously as a generalized principle. Here is such an attempt. Assuming(a) a minimal willingness on the part of two people be in contact; (b) an ability and minimal willingness on the part each to receive communicationfrom the other; and (c) assuming the contact to continue over a period of time; then the following rehtiouship is hypothesized to hold true. The greater the congruence of experience, awareness and communication on the part of one individual, the more the ensuing relationship will involve: a tendency toward reciprocal communication with a quality of increasing congruence; a tendency toward more mutually accurate understanding of the communications; improved psychological adiustment and functioning in both parties; mutual satisfaction in the rehtiouship. A General Law of Interpersonal Relationships 345 Conversely the greater the communicatedincongruence of experience ancl awareness, the more the ensuing relationship will involve: further communicationwith the same quality; disintegration of accurate understanding, less adequate psychological adjustment and functioning in both parties; and mutual dissatisfaction in the relationship. With probably even greater formal accuracy this general law could be stated in a way which recognizes that it is the perception of the receiver of communicationwhich is crucial. Thus the hypothesized law could be put in these terms, assuming the same pre-conditinns as before as to willingness to be in contact, etc. The more that Y experiences the communicationof X as a congruence of experience, awareness, and communication,the more the ensuing relationship will involve: (etc, as stated above.) Stated in this way this "law" becomes an hypothesis which it should be possible to put to test, since Y’s perception of X’s communication should not be too difficult to measure. Tnz ExasTzs~ ClmlCZ Very tentatively indeed I would like to set forth one further aspect of this whole matter, an aspect which is frequently very real in the therapeutic relationship, and also in other relationships, though perhaps less sharply noted. In the actual relationship both the client and the therapist are frequently faced with the existential choice, "Do I dare to communicate the full degree of congruence which I feel? Do I dare match myexperience, and myawareness of that experience, with mycommunication? Do I dare to communicatemyself as I am or must my communicationbe somewhatless than or different from this?" The sharpness of this issue lies in the often vividly foreseen possibility of threat or rejection. To communicateone’s full awareness of the relevant experience is a risk in interpersonal relationships. It seems to me that it is the taking or not taking of this risk which determines whether a given relationship becomesmore and more mutually therapeutic or whether it leads in a disintegrative direction. WHAT ~ THIgLMPLICATION$ FORLIVIlqG~ To put it another way. I cannot choose whether my awareness will be congruent with my experience. This is answered by my need for defense, and of this I am not aware. But there is a continuing existential choice as to whether my communicationwill bo Congruent with the awareness I do have of what I am experiencing. In this moment-by-moment choice in a relationship maylie the answer as to whether the movementis in one direction or the other in terms of this hypothesized law. REFERENCES 1. Rogers, Carl R. A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships. In Koch, S. (Ed.). Psychology:/1 Study of a Science, vol. Ill. NewYork: McGraw-Hin, 1959, 184-256. 2. Rogers, Carl R. The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change, ]. Consult. Psycho1., 21, 95-103. 19 Toward a Theory of Creativity In December19Y2 a Conference on Creativity was called together, by invitation, by a sponsoring group from Ohio State University. The artist, the .writer, the dancer, the musician v:ere all represented, as ~oell as educators in these various fields. In addition there ,a.ere those vobo were interested in the creative process: philosophers, psychiatrists, psychologists. It voas a vital and nourishing conference, and led me to produce somerough notes on creativity and the elements ~:hicb might [oster it. These vaere later expanded into the folio,wing paper. I ]VIAINTAIN that there is a desperate social need for the creative behavior of creative individuals. It is this which justifies the setting forth of a tentative theory of creafivi .ty--the nature of the creative act, the conditions under which it occurs, and the manner in which it may constructively be fostered. Such a theory may serve as a stimulus and guide to research studies in this field. 347 348 W~c.,T ~Rz ~ L~-~ca~oNs~ Lnrm~ THESocc~ N~ Manyof the serious criticisms of our culture and its trends may best be formulated in terms of a dearth of creativity. Let us state Someof these very briefly: In education we tend to turn out conformists, stereotypes, individuals whoseeducation is "completed," rather than freely creative and original thinkem In our leisure time activities, passive entertainment and regimented group action are overwhelminglypredominant while creative activities are muchless in evidence. In the sciences, there is an ample supply of teehuleiaus, but the numberwhocan creatively formulate fruitful hypotheses and theories is small indeed. In industry, creation is reserved for the few--the manager, the designer, the head of the research department--while for the many life is devoid of original or creative endeavor. In individual and family life the same picture holds true. In the clothes we wear, the food we eat, the books we read, and the ideas we hold, there is a strong tendency toward conformity, toward stereotypy. To be original, or different, is felt to be "dangerous." Whybe concerned over this? If, as a people, we enjoy conformity rather than creativity, shall we not be permitted this choice? In my estimation such a choice would be entirely reasonable were it not for one great shadowwhich hangs over all of us. In a time whenknowledge, constructive and destructive, is advancing by" the most incredible leaps and bounds into a fantastic atomic age, genuinely creative adaptation seems to represent the only possibility" that mancan keep abreast of the kaleidoscopic change in his world. With scientific discovery and invention proceeding, we arc told, at the rate of geometric progression, a generally passive and culturebound people cannot cope with the multiplying issues and problems. Unless individuals, groups, and nations can imagine, construct, and creatively revise new ways of relating to these complex changes, the lights will go out. Unless man can make new and original adaptations to his environment as rapidly as his science can change the environment, our culture will perish. Not only individual malad- Towarda Theory of Creativity 349 jnstment and group tensions, but international annihilation will be the price we pay for a lack of creativity. Consequently it would seem to me that investigations of the proCess of creativity, the conditions under which this process occurs, and the ways in which it may be facilitated, are of the utmost importance. It is in the hope of suggesting a conceptual structure under which such investigations might go forward, that the following sections are offered. THECREATIVE PROCESS There are various waysof defining creativity. In order to make more clear the meaning of what is to follow, let me present the elements which, for me, are a part of the creative process, and then attempt a definition. In the first place, for me as scientist, there must be something observable, some product of creation. Thoughmyfantasies maybe extremely novel, they cannot usefully be defined as creative unless they eventuate in some observable product--unless they are symbolized in words, or written in a poem, or translated into a work of art, or fashioned into an invention. These products must be novel constructions. This novel .ty grogs out of the unique qualities of the individual in his interaction with the materials of experience. Creativity always has the stamp of the individual upon its product, but the product is not the individual, nor his materials, but partakes of the relationship between the tWO. Creativity is not, in my judgment, restricted to some particular content. I amassumingthat there is no fundamental difference in the creative process as it is evidenced in painting a picture, composing a symphony,devising new instruments of killing, developing a scientific theory, discovering new procedures in humanrelationships, or creating new formings of one’s own personality" as in psychotherapy. (Indeed it is myexperience in this last l~eld, rather than in one of the arts, which has given mespecial interest in creativity and its facilitation. Intimate knowledgeof the wa.v in which the individual remolds himself in the therapeutic relationship, with WaAT A~~mIM~LmAnONa ~ Lnrmc? originality and effective skill, gives one confidence in the creative potential of all individuals.) My definition, then, of the creative process is that it is the emergence in action of a novel relational product, gro~ffng out of the uniqueness of the individuM on the one hand, and the materials, eoents, people, or circumstances of his life on the other. Let me append some negative footnotes to this definition. It makes no distinction between "good" and "bad" creativity. One manmay be discovering a way of relieving pain, while another is devising a new and more subde form of torture for political prisoners. Both these actions seem to me creative, even though their social value is very different. ThoughI shall commenton these social valuations later, I have avoided putting them in mydefinition because they are so fluctuating. Galileo and Copernicus madecreative discoveries which in their ownday were evaluated as blasphemousand wicked, and in our day as basic and constructive. Wedo not want to cloud our definition with terms which rest in subjectivity. Another way of looking at this same issue is to note that to be regarded historically as representing creativity, the product must be acceptable to some group at some point of time. This fact is not helpful to our definition, however, both because of the fluctuating valuations already mentioned, and also because manycreative products have undoubtedly never been socially noticed, but have disappeared without ever having been evaluated. So this concept of group acceptance is also omitted from our definition. In addition, it should be pointed out that our definition makesno distinction regarding the degree of creativity, since this too is a value judgment extremely variable in nature. The action of the child inventing a new gamewith his playmates; Einstein formulating a theory of relativity; the housewife devising a newsauce for the meat; a young author writing his first novel; all of these are, in terms of our definition, creative, and there is no attempt to set them in some order of more or less creative. THEMOTIVA~ON FORCREAa~V~Ty The mainspring of creativity appears to be the same tendency which we discover so deeply as the curative force in psychotherapy To’ward a Theory of Cre~ivlty 351 man’s tendency to actualize himself, to become his potentialities. By this I meanthe directional trend which is evident in all organic and humanlife--the urge to expand, extend, develop, mature-the tendency to express and activate all the capacities of the organism, or the self. This tendency may becomedeeply buried under layer after layer of enerusted psychological defenses; it may be hidden behind elaborate facades which deny its existence; it is my belief however, based on my experience, that it exists in every individual, and awaits only the proper conditions to be released and expressed. It is this tendency whichis the primary motivation for creativity as the organism forms new relationships to the environment in its endeavor most fully to be itself. Let us nowattempt to deal directly with this puzzling issue of the social value of a creative ae~ Presumablyfew of us are interested in facilitating creativity which is socially destructive. Wedo not "~’ish, knowingly, to lend our efforts to developing individuals whose creative genius works itself out in new and better ways of robbing, exploiting, torturing, killing, other individuals; or developing forms of political organization or art forms which lead humanity into paths of physical or psychological self-destruction. Yet how is it possible to makethe necessary discriminations such that we mayencourage a constructive creativity and not a destructive? The distinction cannot be madeby examining the product. The very essence of the creative is its novelty, and hence we have no standard by which to judge it. Indeed history points up the fact that the moreoriginal the product, and the morefar-reaching its implications, the morelikely it is to be judged by contemporaries as evil. The genuinely significant creation, whether an idea, or a work of art, or a scientific discovery, is most likely to be seen at first as erroneous, bad, or foolish. Later it may be seen as obvious, SOmethingself-evident to all. Only still later does it receive its final evaluation as a creative contribution. It seems clear that no contemporary mortal can satisfactorily evaluate a creative product at the time that it is formed, and this statement is increasingly true the greater the novelty of the creation. Nor is it of any help to examine the purposes of the individual participating in the creative process. Many’, perhaps most. of the WSAT A~~ I~’LXCA~ONS l~O~ Lwmc? creatious and discoveries which have proved to have great social value, have been motivated by purposes having more to do with personal interest than with social wlue, while on the other hand history records a somewhatsorry outcomefor manyof those creations (various Utopias, Prohibition, etc.) which had as their:avowed purpose the achievementof the social good. No, we must face the fact that the individual creates primarily because it is satisfying to him, because this behavior is felt to be self-actualizing, and we get nowhere by trying to differentiate "good" and "bad" purposes in the creative process. Must we then give over any attempt to ~nate between creativity which is potentially constructive, and that which is potentially destructive? I do not believe this pessimistic conclusion is justified. It is here that recent clinical findings from the field of psychotherapy give us hope. It has been found that whenthe individual is "open" to all of his experience (a phrase which will bc defined more fully), then his behavior will be creative, and his creativity may be trusted to be essentially constructive. The differentiation maybe put very briefly as follows. To the extent that the individual is denying to awareness (or repressing, if you prefer that term) large areas of his experience, then his creative formings may be pathological, or socially evil, or both. To the degree that the individual is open to all aspects of his experience, and has available to his awareness all the varied sensings and perceivings which are going on within his organism, then the novel products of his interaction with his environmentwill tend to be constructive both for himself and others. To illustrate, an individual with paranoid tendencies maycreatively develop a most novel theory of the relationship between himself and his environment, seeing evidence for his theory in all sorts of minute clues. His theory has little social value, perhaps because there is an enormous range of experience which this individual cannot permit in his awarenesS. Socrates, on the other hand, while also regarded as "crazy" by his contemporaries, developed novel ideas which have proven to be socially constructive. Very possibly this was because he was notably nondefensive and open to his experience. The reasoning behind this will verhavs become more clear in the Toxvard a Theory of Creativity 353 remaining sections of this paper. Primarily however it is based upon the discovery in psychotherapy, that as the individual becomes more open to, more aware of, all aspects of his experience, he is increasingly likely to act in a manner we would term socialized. If he can be aware of his hostile impulses, but also of his desire for friendship and acceptance; aware of the expectations of his culture, hut equally aware of his ownpurposes; aware of his selfish desires, but also aware of his tender and sensitive concern for another; rhea he behaves in a fashion which is harmonious, integrated, constructive. The more he is open to his experience, the more his behavior makes it evident that the nature of the humanspecies tends in the direction of constructively social living. THEINNER CONOmONS OFCONSTRUCTr~ CRra’nvl~ What are the conditions within the individual which are most closely associated with a potentially constructive creative acu~ I see these as possibilities. A. Openness to experience: Extensionality. This is the opposite of psychological defensiveness, when to protect the org0nizafioa of the self, certain experiences are prevented from cominginto awarea~ except in distorted fashion. In a person whois open to experience each stimuhis is freely relayed through the nervous system, without being distorted by any process of defensiveness. Whether the stimulus originates in the environment, in the impact of form, color, or sound on the sensory nerves, or whether it originates in the viscer~ or as a memorytrace in the central nervous system, it is available to awareness. This meansthat instead of perceiving in predetermined categories ("trees are green," "college education is good," "modem art is silly") the individual is aware of this existential momentas it is, thus being alive to many experiences which fall outside the usual categories (tbis tree is lavender; this college education is damaging; this modernsculpture has a powerful effect on me). This last snggests another way of describing openness to experience. It meanslack of rigidity and pemleabili~" of boundaries in concepts, beliefs, perceptions, and hypotheses. It means a tolerance for ambiguity where ambiguity exists. It means the ability to receive muchconflicting information without forcing closure upon 354 WaAT Aamxlm Lv~zacAlao~sFoi Lrrmo? the situation. It means what the general semanticist calls the "extansioual orientation." This complete openness of awareness to what exists at this moment is, I believe, an important condition of constructive creativity. In an equally intense but more narrowly limited fashion it is no doubt present in all creativity. The deeply maladjusted artist whocannot recognize or be aware of the sources of unhappiness in himself, may nevertheless be sharply and sensitively aware of form and color in his experience. The tyrant (whether on a petty or grand scale) who cannot face the weaknesses in himself may nevertheless be completely alive to and aware of the chinks in the psychological armor of those with whomhe deals. Because there is the openness to one phase of experience, creativity is possible; because the openness is only to one phase of experience, the product of this creativity may be potentially destructive of social values. The more the individual has available to himself a sensitive awareness of all phases of his experience, the more sure we can be that his creativity wili be persoually and socially consmlctive. B. An internal locus of evaluation. Perhaps the most fundamental condition of creativity is that the source or locus of evaluative judgment is internal. The value of his product is, for the creative person, established not by the praise or criticism of others, but by hinx~elf. HaveI created something satisfying to me?Does it express a part of me -- myfeeling or my thought, my pain or myecstasy? These are the only questions which really matter to the creative person, or to any person whenhe is being creative. This does not meanthat he is oblivious to, or unwiUingto be aware of, the judgments of others. It is simply that the basis of evaluation lies within himself, in his ownorganismic reaction to and appraisal of his product. If to the person it has the "feel" of being "me in action," of being an actualization of potentialities in himself which heretofore have not existed and are nowemerging into existence, then it is satisfying and creative, and no outside evaluation can change that fundamental fac~ C. The ability to toy with elements and concepts. Thoughthis is probably less important than A or B, it seems to be a condition of creativity. Associated with the openness and lack of rigidity de- Ta,ward a Theory of Creativity 355 scribed under A is the ability to play spontaneously with ideas, colors, shapes, relationships--to juggle elements into impossible juxtapositions, to shape wild hypotheses, to makethe given problematic, to express the ridiculous, to translate from one form to another, to transform into improbable equivalents. It is from this spontaneous toying and exploration that there arises the hunch, the creative seeing of life in a new and significant way. It is as though out of the wasteful spawning of thousands of possibilities there emerges one or two evolutionary forms with the qualifies which give them a more permanentvalue. THECREATIVE ACTAm)ITS CO~C0MtTA~rS Whenthese three conditions obtain, constructive creativity will occur. But we cannot expect an accurate description of the creative act, for by its very nature it is indescribable. This is the unknown which we must recognize as unknowableuntil it occurs. This is the improbable that becomesprobable. Only in a very general way can we say that a creative act is the natural behavior of an organism which has a tendency to arise whenthat organism is open to all of its inner and outer experiencing, and when it is free to try. out in flexible fashion all manner of relationships. Out of this multitude of half-formed possibilities the organism, like a great computing machine, selects this one which most effectively meets an inner need, or that one which forms a more effective relationship with the environment, or this other one which discovers a more simple and satisfying order in which life maybe perceived. There is one quality of the creative act which may, however, be described. In almost all the products of creation we note a setecrivity, or emphasis, an evidence of discipline, an attempt to bring out the essence. The artist paints surfaces or textures in simplified form, ignoring the minute variations which exist in reality. The scientist formulates a basic law of relationships, brushing aside all the particular events or circumstances which might conceal its naked beauty. The writer selects those words and phrases which#re unity to his expression. Wemaysay that this is the influence of the specific person, of the "L" Reality. exists in a multiplicity of confusing facts, but ’T’ bring a structure to my relationship to reality; I ’WHAT ARETHEII~PLICATIONS FORLn, mo? have "my" way of perceiving reality, and it is this (unconsciously?) disciplined personal selectivity or abstraction which gives to creative products their esthetic quality. Thoughthis is as far as we can go in describing any aspect of the creative act, there are certain of its concomitants in the individual which may be mentioned. The first is what we mayear the Eureka feeling-- "This is it. n’ "I have discovered!" "This is what I wanted to express!" Another concomitant is the anxiety of separateness. I do not believe that manysignLfieantly creative products are formed without the feeling, ’q am alone. No one has ever done just this before. I ¯ have ventured into territory whereno one has been. Perhaps I am foolish, or wrong, or lost, or abnormaL" Still another experience which usually accompanies creativity is the des/re to communicate.It is doubtful whether a humanbeing can create, without wishing to share his creation. It is the only way he can assuage the anxiety of separateness and assure himself that he belongs to the group. He mayconfide his theories only to his private diary. He may put his discoveries in some cryptic code. He may conceal his poemsin a locked drawer. He mayput awayhis paintings in a closet. Yet he desires to communicatewith a group which will understand him, even if he must imagine such a group. He does not create in order to communicate, but once having created he desires to share this new aspect of himseff-in-rehtion-to-his-environment with others. COmmONS FOSTZRrNG Co~s~uc-rrvECr~Trvr~ Thus far I have tried to describe the nature of creativity, to indicate that quality of individual experience which increases the likelihood that creativity will be constructive, to set forth the necessary conditions for the creative act and to state some of its concomitant. But if we are to make progress in mee6ngthe social need which was presented initially, we must know whether constructive creativity can be fostered, and if so, how. Fromthe very nature of the inner conditions of creativity it is clear that they cannot be forced, but must be permitted to emerge. The farmer cannot makethe germ develop and sprout from the To,ward a Theoryof Creativ~y 357 seed; he can only supply the ourCufing conditions which will permit the seed to develop its own potentialities. So it is with creativity. Howcan we establish the external conditions which will foster and nourish the internal conditions described above? Myexperience in psychotherapy leads me to believe that by setting .up conditions of psychological safety and freedom, we maximize the likelihood of an emergence of constructive ureativity. Let me spell out these canditions in somedetail, labelling them as X and Y. X. Psychological safety. This may be established by three associated processes. 1. Accepting the individual as of unconditional worth. Whenever a teacher, parent, therapist, or other person with a facilitating function feels basically that this individual is of worth in his own fight and in his own unfolding, no matter what his present condition or behavior, he is fostering creativity. This attitude can probably be genuine only when the teacher, parent, etc., senses the potentialities of the individual and thus is able to have an unconditional faith in him, no matter what his present state. The effect on the individual as he apprehends this attitude, is to sense a climate of safety. He gradually learns that he can be whatever he is, without sham or facade, since he seems to be regarded as of worth no matter what he does. Hence he has less need of rigidity, can discover what it meansto be himself, can try to actualize himself in new and spontaneous ways. He is, in other words, moving toward creativity. 2. Providing a climate in which external evaluation is absent. Whenwe cease to form judgments of the other individual from our own locus of evaluation, we are fostering creativity. For the mdividual to find himseff in an amaosphere where he is not being evaluated, not being measured by some external standard, is enormously freeing. Evaluation is always a threat, always creates a need for defensiveness, always means that some portion of experience must be denied to awareness. If this product is evaluated as good by external standards, then I must not admit myowndislike of it. If what I am doing is bad by external standards, then I must not be aware of the fact that it seems to be me, to be part of myself. But if judgments based on external standards are not being madethen 358 W~TARE~ I~t~Ic~zlo~ ~ Ln, mO I can be more open to my experience, can recognize my own likings and dislikings, the nature of the materials and of my reaction to them, more sharply and more sensitively. I can begin to recognize the locus of evaluation within myself. HenceI am movingtoward creativity. To allay some possible doubts and fears in the reader, it should be pointed out that to cease evaluating another is not to cease having reacfior~ It may, as a matter of fact, free one to reac~ "I don’t like your idea" (or painting, or invention, or writing), is not evaluation, but a reaction. It is sub@but sharply different from a judgment which says, ’%Vhatyou are doing is bad (or good), and this quality is assigned to you from someexternal source." The first statement permits the individual to maintain his ownlocus of evalnation. It holds the possibility that I am unable to appreciate something which is actually very good. The second statement, whether it praises or condemns,tends to put the person at the mercy of outside force~ He is being told that he cannot simply ask himself whether this product is a valid expression of himself; he must be concerned with what others think. He is being led awayfrom creativity. 3. Understanding empathieally. It is this which provides the ultimate in psychological safety, whenadded to the other two. If I say that I "accept" yon, but knownothing of yon, this is a shallow acceptance indeed, and yon realize that it maychange if I actually cometo knowyou. But if I understand you empathieaUy, see you and what you are feeling and doing from your point of view, enter your private world and see it as it appears to you-- and still accept you -- then this is safety indeed. In this climate you can permit your real self to emerge, and to express itself in varied and novel formings as it relates to the world. This is a basic fostering of creativity. Y. Psycbologic,,l freedom. Whena teacher, parent, therapist, or other facilitating person permits the individual a complete freedom of symbolic expression, creativity is fostered. This permissiveness gives the individual complete freedom to think, to feel, to be, whatever is most inward within himself. It fosters the openness, and the playful and spontaneous iuggiing of percepts, concepts, and meanings, which is a part of creativity. To.ward a Theory of Creativ/ty 3~9 Note that it is complete freedom of symbolic expression which is described. To express in behavior all feelings, impulses, and formings may not in all instances be freeing. Behavior may in some instances be limited by society, and this is as it should be. But symbolic expression need not be limited. Thus to destroy a hated obiect (whether one’s mother or a rococo building) by destroying a symbol of it, is freeing. To attack it in reality may create guilt and mrrowthe psychological freedom which is experienced. (I feel unsure of this paragraph, but it is the best formulation I can give at the momentwhich seems to square with my experience.) The permissiveness which is being described is not softness or indulgence or encouragement.It is permission to be free, which also means that one is responsible. The individual is as free to be afraid of a new venture as to be eager for it; free to bear the consequences of his mistakes as well as of his achievements. It is this type of freedomresponsibly to be oneself which fosters the development of a secure locus of evaluation within oneself, and hence tends to bring about the inner conditions of constructive creativity. CONCLUSION I have endeavored to present an orderly wayof thinking about the creative process, in order that some of these ideas might be put to a rigorous and obiective test. Myiustification for formulating this theory, and my reason for hoping that such research maybe carried out is that the present developmentof the physical sciences is makingan imperative demandupon us, as individuals and as a culture, for creative behavior in adapting ourselves to our new world if we are to survive. PART VII The Behavioral Sciences and the Person I feel a deep concern that the developing behavioral sciences may be used to control the indk, idual and to rob him of his personhood. I believe, ho~vever, that these sciences might be used to enhance the person. 20 The Growing Power of the Behavioral Sciences Late participate in 19YYProfessor B. F. debate Skinner of him Harvard me to in a friendly with at theinvited convention of the AmericanPsychological Association in the fall of 1956. He knew that we held very divergent views as to the use of scientific kno-,vledge in molding or controlling humanbehavior, and suggested that a debate ~wouldserve a useful purpose by clarifying the issue. His ov:n basic point of view he bad expressed by deploring the un,cdlg ingness of psychologists to use their po~ver. "At the momentpsychologists are curiously diffident in assuming control ~rhere it is available or in developing it cohere it is not. In most clinics the emphasis is still upon psychemetry, and this is in part due to an unwillingness to assumetbe responsibility of control .... In some curious voay we feel compelled to leave the active control of tntman behavior to those voho grasp it for selfish purposes."* I ~was in agreement ,with him that such a discussion ~vould serve a qaaluable purpose in stirring interest in an important issue. We held the debate in September 19Y6. It attracted a large and attentive audience, and, as is the ~vay in debates, most of the membersdoubtless left feeling confirmed in the viev:s they held v:hen they came ¯ Skinner, B. F., in Current Trends in Psychology, edited by W=yneDennit (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1947), pp. 24-25. 363 THEB~awce,~Sc~vc~ ~.~ rim Psmso~ in. The text of the debate was published in Science, Nov. 30, 19Y6, 124, pp. 1057-106G. As I mulled over this experience afterward, my only dissatisfaction lay in the fact that it was a debate. While both Skinner and I had endeavored to avoid argumentfor argument’s sake, the :tone was nevertheless of an either-or variety. I felt that the question vaas far too importam to be thought of as an argument between two persons, or a simple black versus ~hite issue. So during the following year I wrote out at greater length, and v:itb, I believe, less argumentativeness, my own perception of the elements in this problem which one day ,will be seen as a profoundly momentousdecision for society. The exposition seemed to fall naturally into two parts, and these constitute the two chapters which follow. I had no particular plan in mind for the use of these documant$ when I wrote them. I have however used them as the basis for lectures to the course on "Contemporary Trends" at the University of Wisconsin, and this past year I used them as the basis for a seminar presentation to faculty and students at the California Institute of Technology. Ik T This cluster HESCI~CES W’E[I~DEAL WITH BEHAVIOR al~ ~1 all irlfant s~t~ of scientific disciplines is usually thought of as including psychology, psychiatry, sociology, social psychology, atrthropology, and biology, though sometimes the other social sciences such as economiesand political science are included, and mathematics and statistics are very much involved as instrumental disciplines. Thoughthey are all at work trying to understand the behavior of man and animals, and though research in these fields is growing by leaps and bounds, it is still an area in which there is undoubtedly more confusion than solid knowledgr. Thoughtful workers in thes© fields tend to stress the enormity of our scientific ignorance regarding behavior, and the paucity of general laws which have been discovered. They tend to compare the state of this field of scientific Gro’u~gPo.J:~ of the Bebeuioral Scle~ces ~5 endeavor with that of physics, and seeing the relative precision of measurement, accuracy of prediction, and elegance and simplicity of the discovered lawfulness in this latter field, are vividly aware of the newness, the infancy, the immaturity, of the behavioral science field. ~,Vithout in any way denying the truthfulness of this picture, I believe it is sometimes stressed to the point where the general public may fail to recognize the other side of the coim Behavioral science, even though in its infancy, has made mighty strides toward becoming an "if--then" science. By this I meanthat it has madesttiking progress in discerning and discovering lawful relationships such that //: certain conditions exist, then certain behaviors will predictably follow. I believe that too few people are aware of the extent, the breadth, and the depth of the advances which have been madein recent decades in the behavioral sciences. Still fewer seem to be aware of the profound social, educational, political, economic, ethical, and philosophical problems posed by these advances. I would like in this and the subsequent lecture to accomplish several purposes. First, I would like to sketch, in an impressionistic manner, a picture of the growing ability of the behavioral sciences to understand, predict, and control behavior. Then I should like to point out the serious questions and problems which such achievements pose for us as individuals and as a society. Then I should like to suggest a tentative resolution of these problems which has meanhag for me. THE"KNow-How" oF THEBEHAVIORAL SClENC~ Let us try to obtain some impression of the significance of knowledge in the behavioral sciences by dipping in here and there to take a look at specific studies and their meanings. I have endeavored to choose illustrations which would indicate something of the range of the work being done. I am limited by the scope of my ownknow]edge, and makeno claim that these illustrations represent a m~ly random sampling of the behavioral sciences, l am sure that the fact that I am a psychologist meansthat I tend to draw a disproportionate 366 T~ B.~H.~WOLJJ.Scw.~c.es ANDTHEI~tSON share of examplesfrom that field. I have also tended to select illustrations which emphasize the prediction and potential control of behavior, rather than those whose central significance is simply to increase our understanding of behavior. I am quite aware that in the long run these htrer studies may lend themselves even more deeply to prediction and control, but their relevance to such problems is not so hnmedistely evident. In giving these samplings of our scientific knowledge,I shall state them in fimple terms, without the various qualifying elements which are important for rigorous accuracy. Each general statement I shall make is supported by reasonably adequate research, though like all scientific findings each statement is an expression of a given degree of probability, not of someabsolute truth. Furthermoreeach sEatement is open to modification and correction or even refutation through more exact or more imaginative studies in the future. PREDICTION oy B~ttAwo~ With these selective factors and qualifications in mind let us first look at some of the achievements in the behavioral sciences in which the element of prediction is prominent. The pattern of each of these can be generalized as follows: "If an individual possesses measurable characteristics a, b, and c then we can predict that there is a high probability that he will exhibit behaviors x, y, and z." Thus, v~e know bow to predict, ,with considerable accuracy, ,which individuals q~ill be successful college students, successful industrial executives, successful insurance salesmen, and the like. I will not attempt to documentthis statement, simply because the documentation would be so extensive. The whole field of aptitude testing, of vocational testing, of personnel selection is involved. Although the specialists in these fields are rightly concerned with the degree of inaccuracy in their predictions, the fact remains that here is a wide area in which the work of the behavioral sciences is accepted by multitudes of hardheaded industries, universities and other organizations. Wehave cometo accept the fact that out of an unknown group the behavioral scientist can select (with a certain margin of error) those persons whowill be successful typists, practice reachers, filing clerks, or physicists. Gro~ng po~ver of the Beba~oral Sciences 367 This field is continually expanding. Efforts are being madeto determine the characteristics of the creative chemist, for example, as over against the merely successful chemist, and, though without outstanding success, efforts have been and are being made to determine the characteristics which will identify the potentially successfill psychiatrist and clinical psychologist. Science is movingsteadily forward in its ability to say whether or not you possess the measurlble characteristics which are associated with a certain type of occupational activity. We know how to predict success in schools ~or military officer candidates, and in combat performance. To select one study in this field, Williams and Leavitt (31) found that they could makesatisfactory predictions regarding a Marine’s probable success in OCS mdin later combat performance by obtaining ratings from his "buddies." They also found that in this instance the man’s fellow soldiers were better psychological instruments than were the objective tests they used. There is illustrated here not only the use of certain measures to predict behavior, but a willingness to use those measures, whether conventional or unconventional, which are demons~ated to have predictive power. We can predict bowradical or conservative a potential business executive "will be. Whyte(30), in his recent book cites this as one of manyexamples of tests that are in regular use in industrial corporations. Thus in a group of young executives up for promotion, top managementcan select those who will exhibit (within a margin of error) whatever degree of conservatism or radicalism is calculated to be for the best welfare of the company. They can also base their selection on knowledgeof the degree to which each manhas l latent hostility to society, or latent homosexuality, or psychotiC tendencies. Tests giving (or purporting to give) such measures are in Use by many corporations both for screening purposes in selection of newmanagementpersonnel, and also for purposes of evaluation of men already in managementpositions, in order to choose those Whowill be given greater responsibilities. We knowbow to predict v;bicb membersof an organization vaill be troublemakers and~or delinquent. A promising young psychologist (10) has devised a short, simple pencil and paper test which TaE BZaAWORXL $CmSCF.S ~ Zm~ PrisON has showna high degree of accuracy in predicting which of the employees hired by a deparunent store will be unrehable, dishonest, or otherwise di~culr. He states that it is quite possible to identify, with considerable precision, the potential troublemakers in any organized group. This ability to identify those who will make trouble is, so far as the technical issues are concerned, simply an extension of the knowledgewe have of prediction in other fields. Fromthe scientific point of view it is no different from predicting who will be a good typesetter. We know that a competent clerical qaorker, using a combination of tea scores and actuarial tables, can give a better predictive picture of a person’s personality and behavior, than can an experienced clinic~an. Paul Meehl (18) has shownthat we are sufficiently advanced in our development of personality tests, and in information accumuhted through these tests, that intuitive skill and broad knowledge, experience, and training, are quite unnecessary in producing accurate personality descriptions. He has shownthat in manysitoafions in which personality diagnoses are being made--mentalhygiene clinics, veteran’s hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, and the like, it is wasteful to use weli-trained professional personnel to makepersonality diagnoses through the giving of tests, interviewing the person and the like. He has shownthat a clerk can do it better, with only a minimumand impersonal contact with the patient. First a number of tests wouldbe administered and scored. Then the profile of scores would be looked up in actuarial tables prepared on the basis of hundreds of cases, and an accurate and predictive description of personality would emerge, the clerk simply copying downthe combination of characteristics which had been found to be statistically correlated with this configuration of scores. Meeld is here simply carrying forward to the next logical step the current developmentof psychological instruments for the measurement, appraisal and evaluation of humancharacteristics, and the prediction of certain behavior patterns on the basis of those measurements. Indeed, there is no reason why Meehl’s clerk could not also be eliminated. With proper coded instructions there is no reason why an electronic computer could not score the tests, analyze the profiles and comeup with an even more accurate picture of the person and his predicted behavior than a humanclerk. Gro~ng Power of the Behavioral Sciences 369 Wecan select those persons ,who are easily persuaded, ~bo ,will conform to group pressures, or tbose "who ,will not yield. Two separate but compatible studies (15, 16) show dmt individuals who exhibit certain dependency themes in their responses m the pictures of the Thematic Apperception Tear, or who, on another test, show evidence of feelings of social inadequacy, inhibition of aggression, and depressive tendencies, will be easily persuaded, or will yield to group pressures. These small studies are by no means definitive, but there is every reason to suppose that their basic hypothesis is correct and that these or other more refined measures will accurately predict which membersof a group will be easily persuaded, and which will be unyielding even to fairly strong group pressures. We can predict, from the way individuals perceive the movement of a spot o[ light in a dark room, q~hetber they tend to be prejudiced or unprejudiced. There has been muchstudy of ethnocentrism, the tendency toward a pervasive and rigid distinction between ingroups and outgroups, with hosflity toward outgroups, and a submissive attitude toward, and belief in the rightness of, ingronps. One of the theories which has developed is that the more ethnocentric person is unable to tolerate ambiguity or uncertainty in a situation. Operating on this theory Block and Block (5) had subjects report on the degree of movementthey perceived in a dim spot of light in a completely dark room. (Actually no movementoccurs, but almost all individuals perceive movementin this situation.) They also gave these same subjects a test of ethnocentrism. It was found, as predicted, that those who, in successive trials, quickly established a norm for the amountof movementthey perceived, tended to be more ethnocentric than those whose estimates of movementcontinued to show variety. This study was repeated, with slight variation, in Australia (28), and the findings were confirmed and enlarged. It was found that the more ethnocentric individuals were less able to tolerate ambiguity, and saw less movementthan the unpreiudiced. They also were more dependent on others and when making their estimates in the companyof another person, tended to conform to the judgment of that person. Hence it is not too muchto say that by studying the way the individual perceives the movementof a dim light in a dark room, we T~ B~no~Sconces AND ~ I~.~ON can tell a good deal about the degree m which he is a rigid, prejudiced, ethnocentric person. This hodgepodgeof ilhstrafions of the ability of the behavioral sciences m predict behavior, and hence to select individuals whowill exhibit certain behaviors, may be seen simply as the burgeoning applicatiom of a growing field of science. But what these illustrations suggest can also cause a cold chill of apprehension. The thoughtful person cannot help hut recognize that these developments I have described are but the beginning. He cannot fail to see that if more highly developed tools were in the hands of an individual or group, together with the power to use them, the social and philosophical implications are awesome. He can begin to see why a scientist like yon Bertalanffy warns, "Besides the menace of physical technology, the dangers of psychological technology are often overlooked" (3). Co~mmo~s Fo~ow~BYSPzcavn~B~L~VmRS m GROUPS But before we dwell on this social problem, let us moveon to another area of the behavioral sciences, and again take a sampling of illustrative studies. This time let us look at someof the research which shows potentiality for control of groups. In this realm we are interested in investigations whose findings are of this pattem: "If conditions a, b, and c e~t or are established in a group, then there is a high probability that these conditions will be followed by behaviors x, y, and z." We know b6,w to provide conditions in a ,work group, wbetbcr in industry or in education, which will be followed by increased productivity, originality, and morale. Studies by Cochand French (7), by Nagle (19), and by Katz, Macoby,and Morse (17) show general that whenworkers in industry participate in planning and in decisions, when supervisors are sensitive to worker attitudes, and when supervision is not suspicious or authoritarian, production and morale increase. Conversely we knowhow to provide the conditions which lead to low productivity and low morale, since the reverse conditions produce a reverse effect. We knowbow to establisb, in any group, tbe conditions of leadership wbicb will be followed by personality development in the membersof the group, as well as by increased productivity and origi- Orozurng Po~e’,," of the Beba,plm’al Sciences 371 r, ality, and improved group spirit. In groups as diverse as a brief university workshopand an industrial plant makingcastings, Gordon (9) and Richard (22) have shownthat where the leader or leaders hold attitudes customarily thought of as therapeutic, the results are good. In other words if the leader is acceptant, both of the feelings of group membersand of his own feelings; if he is understanding of others in a sensitively empathic way; if he permits and encourages free discussion; if he places responsibility with the group; then there is evidence of personality growth in the membersof the group, and the group functions more effectively, with greater creativity and better spirit We kno~ bow to establish conditions v:bicb will result in in. creased psychological rigidity in membersof a group. Beier (2), in a careful study, took two matched groups of students and measured several aspects of their abilities, particularly abstract reasoning. Each of the students in one group was then given an analysis of his personality based upon the Rorsehach tes~ Following this both groups were re-tested as to their abilities. The group which had been given an evaluation of their personalities showed a decrease in flexibility, and a significant decrease in ability to carry on abstract reasoning. They became more rigid, anxious, and disorganized in their thinking, in contrast to the control group. It would be tempting to note that this evaluation--experienced by the group as somewhatthreatening--seems very similar to manyevaluations made in our schools and universities under the guise of education. All we are concerned with at the momentis that we do know how to establish the conditions which make for less effective functioning on complex intellectual tasks. We kno~o a great deal about boy: to establish conditions which will influence consumer responses and~or public opinion. I think this need nor be documentedwith research studies. I refer you to the advertisements in any magazine, to the beguilements of TVprograms and their Trendex ratings, to the firms of public relations experts, and to the upwardtrend of sales by any corporation which puts on a well-planned series of ads. We knowbowto influence the buying behavior of individuals by setting up conditions which provide sad#action for needs of ~bicb Tuz BmaAwo~ Sc~.~ AND ~ Pm~ON they are uncomciouz, but which we ba~e been able to determine. It has been shownthat somewomenwhodo not buy instant coffee because of "a dislike for its flavor" actually dislike it at a subconscious level because it is associated with being a poor housekeeper --with laziness and spendthrift qualities (11). This type of study, based on the use of projective techniques and "depth" interviews, has led to sales campaignsbuilt upon appeals to the unconscious motives of the individual--his unknownsexual, aggressive, or dependent desires, or as in this instance, the desire for approval These illustrative studies indicate something of our potential ability to influence or control the behavior of groups. If we have the poweror authority to establish the necessary conditions, the predicted behaviors will follow. There is no doubt that both the studies and the methods are, at the present time crude, but more refined ones are sure to develop. Co~mmoNs WmcaPaooucz SPecanr.n EFFECTS m I~mnnmUALS Perhaps even more impressive than our knowledgeof groups is the knowledgewhichis accumulating in the behavioral sciences as to the conditions which will be followed by specified types of behavior in the individuaL It is the possibility of sdenrific prediction and control of individual behavior which comesclosest to the interests of each one of us. Again let us look at scattered bits of this type of knowledge. Weknow how to set up the conditions under ~bicb manyindividuals will report as true, judgments which are contrary to tbe e~idence of their senses. They will, for example report that Figure A covers a hrger area than Figure B, whenthe evidence of their senses plainly indicates that the reverse is true. Experiments by Asch (1) later refined and improved by Crutchfield (8) show that a person is led to believe that everyone else in the group sees A as larger than B, then he has a strong tendency to go along with this judgment, and in manyinstances does so with a real belief in his false reporL Not only can we predict that a certain precentage of individuals will thus yield, and disbelieve their ownsenses, but Crutchfield has d©terminedthe personality attributes of those who will do so, and t Greu~gPoc~er of the Beba~oral Sciences 373 by selection procedures would be able to choose a group whowould almost uniformly give in to these pressures for conformity. We knoq~ bo‘w to change the opinions of an individual in a selected direction, ‘without his ever becoming aware of the stimuli ~bicb changed his opinion. A static, expressionless portrait of a manwas flashed on a screen by Smith, Spence and Klein (27). They requested their subjects to note how the expression of the picture changed. Then they intermittently flashed the word "angry" on the screen, at exposures so brief that the subjects were consciously completely unawareof having seen the word. They tended, however, to see the face as becoming more angry. Whenthe word "happy" was flashed on the screen in similar fashion, the viewers tended to see the face as becomingmore happy. Thus they were clearly influenced by stimuli which registered at a subliminal level, stimuli of which the individual was not, and could not be, aware. We know bo,w to influence psychological moods, attitudes, and behaviors, through drugs. For this illustration we step over into the rapidly developing borderline area between chemistry and psychology. From drugs to keep awake while driving or studying, to su-called "truth serum" whichreduces the psychological defenses of the individual, to the chemotherapy now practiced in psychiatric wards, the range and complexity of the growing knowledgein this field is striking. Increasingly there are efforts to find drugs with more specific effects--a drug which will energize the depressive individual, another to calm the excited, and the like. Drugs have reportedly been given to soldiers before a battle to eliminate fear. Trade names for the tranquilizing drugs such as Miltownhave already crept into our language, even into our cartoons. While muchis still unknownin this field, Dr. Skinner of Harvard states that, "In the not-too-distant future, the motivational and emotional conditions of normal life will probably be maintained in any desired state through the use of drugs" (26). While this seems to be somewhatexaggerated view, his prediction could be partially justified. We kno~v ho,w to provide psychological conditions v:bich ~,ill produce vivid hallucinations and other abnormalreactions in the tloorougbl), normal individual in ttoe ,waking state. This knowledge 374 Tm~Ban.,~woa.~ ScmNczs~ arm PmumM came about as the unexpected by-product of research at McGill University (4). It was discovered that if all channels of sensory stimulation are cut off or muffled, abnormalreactions follow. If healthy subjects lie motionless, to reduce kinaesthetic stimuli, with eyes shielded by translucent goggles which do not permit perception, with hearing largely stifled by foam rubber pillows as well as by being in a quiet cubicle, and with tactile sensations reduced by cuffs over the hands, then hallucinations and bizarre ideation bearing somer~emblanceto that of the psychotic occur within forty-eight hours in most subjects. Whatthe results would be if the sensory stifling were continued longer is not knownbecause the experience seemedso potentially dangerous that the investigators were reluctant to continue it. Weknow bow to use a person’s o~n voords to open up ~bole troubled areas in Isis experience. Cameron(6) and his associates have taken from recorded therapeutic interviews with a patient, brief statements by the patient whichseem significantly related to the underlying dynamics of the case. Such a brief statement is then put on a continuous tape so that it can be played over and over. When the patient hears his ownsignificant words repeated again and again, the effect is very potent. By the time it has been repeated twenty or thirty times the patient often begs to have it stopped. It seems clear that it penetrates the individual’s defenses, and opens up the whole psychic area related to the statement. For example, a womanwho feels very inadequate and is having marital difficulties, talked about her mother in one interview, saying of her, amongother things, "That’s what I can’t understand- that one could strike at a little child." This recorded sentence was played over and over to her. It madeher very uneasy and frightened. It also opened up to her all her feelings about her mother. It helped her to see that "not being able to trust my mother not to hurt me has mademe mistrustful of everybody." This is a very simple example of the potency of the method, which can not only be helpful but which can be dangerously disorganizing if it penetrates the defenses too deeply or too rapidly. We knowthe attitudes vohich, if provided by a counselor or tJ therapist, qz, ill be predictably folio,wed by certain constructive per- Gro~’ing power of the Beb,n~oral Sciences 375 sonality and behavior changes in the client. Studies we have completed in recent years in the field of psychotherapy (23, 24, 25, 29) justify this statement. The findings from these studies may be very briefly summarizedin the following way. If the therapist provides a rehtiomhip in which he is (a) genuine, internally consistent; (b) acceptant, prizing the client as a person of worth; (c) empathically understanding of the clienes private world of feelings and attitudes; then certain changes occur in the clien~ Someof these changes are; the client becomes(a) more realistic in his self-perceptions; (b) more confident and self-directing; (c) more positively valued by himself; (d) less likely to repress mentS of his experience; (e) more mature, socialized and adaptive in his behavior; (f) less upset by stxess and quicker to recover from it; (g) more like the healthy, integrated, well-f~nctioning person in his personality structure. These changes do not occur in a control group, and appear to be definitely associated with the client’s being in a therapeutic relationship. Weknow ho~z to disintegrate a man’s personality structure, dissolving his self-confidence, destroying the concept he has of himself, and making him dependent on another. A very Careful study by Hinlde and Wolff (13) of methodsof Communistinterrogation prisoners, particularly in CommunistChina, has given us a reasonably accurate picture of the process popularly knownas "brainwashing." Their study has shown that no magical nor essentially new methods have been used, but mostly a combination of practices developed by rule of thumb. Whatis involved is largely a somewhat horrifying reversal of the conditions of psychotherapy briefly noted above. If the individual under suspicion is rejected and isolated for a long time, then his need for a humanrelationship is gready intensified. The interrogator exploits this by building a relationship in which he shows mostly non-acceptance, and does all he can to arouse guilt, conflict and anxie .ty. He is acceptant toward the prisoner only whenthe prisoner "cooperates" by being willing to view events through the interrogator’s eyes. He is completely rejecting of the prisoner’s internal frame of reference, or personal perception of eventS. Gradually, out of his need for more acceptance, the prisoner ~:omeSto accept halftruths as being true, until tittle by little he has 376 Tnz BEaAvlO~ SCmNC~~’~ ~az given up his own view of himself and of his behavior, and has accepted the viewpoint of his interrogator. He is very much demoralized and disintegrated as a person, and largely the puppet of the interrogator. He is then willing to "confess" that he is an enemyof the state, and has committedall kinds of treasonable acts which either he has not done, or which actually had a very different significance. In a sense it is misleading to describe these methodsas a product of the behavioral sciences. They were developed by the Russian and Chinese police, not by scientism Yet I include them here since it is very clear that these crude methods could be madedecidedly more effective by means of scientific knowledgewhich we nowpossess. In short our knowledge of how personality and behavior may be changed can be used constructively or destructively, to build or to destroy persons. Co~r~mossWmca PRODUCE SPEcrnm EFfects m AmMar.s Perhaps I have already given ample evidence of the significant and often frightening power of this young field of science. Yet before we turn to the implicatiom of all this, I should like to push the matter one step further by mentioning a few small bits of the very large amount of knowledge which has accumuhted in regard to the behavior of animals. Here myown acquaintance is even more limited, but I would like to mention three suggestive studies and their findingg We know boqz to establish the conditions ~bicb ~vill cause young ducklings to develop a lasting devotion to, for examflle, an old shoe. Hess (12) has carried out studies of the phenomenonof "imprinthag," first investigated in Europe. He has shownthat in mallard ducklings, for example, there are a few crucial hours--from the 13th to the 17th hour after hatching--when the duckling becomes attached to any object to which it may be exposed. The more effort it exerts in following this object, the more intense will be the attachment. Normally of course this results in an attachment to the mother duck, but the duckling can just as easily form an indelible devotion to any goal object--to a decoy duck, to a humanbeing, or, as I have mentioned, to an old shoe. Is there any similar tendency in the humaninfant? One cannot help but speculate. Greu,qngpovaer of the Bebavioral Sciences 377 We kno~v how to eliminate a strong specific fear in a rat by means of electro-convulsive shock. Hunt and Brady (14) first trained thirsty rats to obtain water by pressing a lever. This they did freely and frequently while in the experimental box. VChenthis habit was well fixed a conditioned fear was established by having a clicker sound for a time before a mildly painful electric shock was administered. After a time the rats responded with strong fear reactions and cessation of all lever pressing wheneverthe clicker sounded, even though the clicking was not followed by any painful stimulus. This conditioned fear reaction was howeveralmost completely eliminated by a series of electo-convulsive shocks administered to the animals. Following this series of shock treatments the animals showedno fear, and freely pressed the lever, even while the clicker was sounding. The authors interpret their results very cautiously, but the general similarity to shock therapy administered to humanbeings is obvious. We knocv bo~v to train pigeons so that they can direct an explosive missile to a pre-determined target. Skinner’s amusing account (26a) of this wartime developmentis only one of manyimpressive instances of the possibilities of so-called operant conditioning. He took pigeons and "shaped up" their pecking behavior by rewarding them wheneverthey came at all close to pecking in the direction of, or at, an object he had preselected. Thus he could take a map of a foreign city, and gradually train pigeons to peck only at that portion which contained somevital industry--an airplane factory, for instance. Or he could train them to peck only at representations of certain types of ship at sea. It was then only a technical matter, though to be sure a complexone, to turn their peckings into guidance for a missile. Housing two or three pigeons in the simulated nose of a missile he was able to show that no matter howit might veer off course the pigeons would bring it back "on target" by their pecking. In response to what I amsure must be your question, I must say that, No, it was never used in warfare, because of the unexpectedly rapid developmentof electronic devices. But that it would have worked, there seems little question. Skinner has been able to train pigeons to play ping pong, for example, and he and his co-workers have been able to develop many Tnz BE~L~WOR~ Sc’msczs AND¢nS PsaSON complex behaviors in animals which seem "intelligent" and "purposeful." The principle is the same in all instances. The animal is given positive reinforcement--some small reward- for every behavior which is at all in the direction of the purpose selected by the investigator. At first perhaps it is only very gross behaviors which in a general wayare in the desired direction. But more and more the behavior is "shaped up" to a refined, exact, specific set of proselected actions. Fromthe vast behavioral repertoire of an organism, those behaviors are reinforced with increasing refinement, which serve the exact purpose of the investigator. Experimentswith humanbeings are a tittle less clearcut, but it has been shown that by such operant conditioning (such as a nod of the head by the investigator) one can bring about an increase in the numberof plural nouns, or statements of personal opinion, expressed by the subject, without his having any awareness of the reason for this change in his behavior. In Skinner’s view much of our behavior is the result of such operant conditioning, often unconscious on the part of both participants. He would like to makeit conscious and purposeful, and thus controlling of behavior. Wekno~ haw to provide animals .,vith a most sati~ying experience consisting entirely of electrical stimulation. Olds (20) has found that he can implant tiny electrodes in the septal area of the brain of laboratory rats. Whenone of these animals presses a bar in his cage, it causes a minute current to pass through these dectrodes. This appears to be such a rewarding experience that the animal goes into an orgy of bar pressing, often until he is exhausted. Whatever the subjective nature of the experience it seems to be so satisfying that the animal prefers it to any other activity. I will not speculate as to whether this procedure might be applied to hUh’ran beings, nor what, in this case, its consequences would be. THEGENERAL PICTURE ANDITs IAVIPLICATION$ I hope that these numerousspecific illustrations will have given concrete meaning to the statement that the behavioral sciences are makingrapid strides in the understanding, prediction, and control of behavior. In important ways we knowhow to select individuals who will exhibit certain behaviors; to establish conditions in groups which Growing power of the Bebeoioral Sciences 379 will lead to various predictable group behaviors; to establish conditions which, in an individual, will lead to specified behavioral results; and in animals our ability to understand, predict and control goes even further, possibly foreshadowing future steps in relation to man. If your reaction is the same as mine then you will have found that this picture I have given has its deeply frightening aspects. With all the immaturity of this young science, and its vast ignorance, even its present state of knowledgecontains awesomepossibilities. Suppose some individual or group had both the knowledgeavailable, and the power to use that knowledgefor somepurpose. Individuals could be selected who would be leaders and others who would be followers. Persons could be developed, enhancedand facilitated, or they could be weakened and disintegrated. Troublemakers could be discovered and dealt with before they becamesuch. Morale could be improved or lowered. Behavior could be influenced by appeals to motives of which the individual was unconscious. It could be a nightmare of manipulation. Admittedly this is wild fantasy, but it is not an impossible fantasy. Perhaps it makesclear the reason whyRobert Oppenheimer, one of the most gifted of our natural scientists, looks out from his owndomain of physics, and out of the experiences in that field voices a warning. He says that there are some similarities between physics and psychology, and one of these similarities "is the extent to which our progress will create profound problems of decision in the public domain. The physicists have been quite noisy about their contributions in the last decade. The time may well come--as psychology acquires a sound objective corpus of knowledge about humanbehavior and feeling- when the powers of control thus madeavaihble will pose far graver problems than any the physicists have posed." (21) Someof you may fed that I have somehowmade the problem more serious than it is. You may point out that only a very few of the scientific findings I have mentioned have actually been put to use in any way that significantly affects socieLy, and that for the most part these studies are important to the behavioral scientist but have little practical impact on our culture. I quite agree with this last point. The behas4oral sciences at the present time are at somewhatthe same stage as the physical sciences several generations ago. As a rather recent example of what I mean, take the argument which occurred around 1900 as to whether a heavier-than-air machine could fly. The science of aeronautics was not well-developed or precise, so that though there were findings which gave an affLrmative answer, other studies could be lined up on the negative side. Most important of all, the public did not believe that this science possessed any validity, or would ever significantly affect the culture. They preferred to use their commonsense, which told them that mancould not possibly fly in a contraption which was heavier than air. Contrast the public attitude toward aeronautics at that time with the attitude today. Wewere told, a few years ago, that seienee preo dieted we would launeh a satellite into space, an utterly fantastic scheme. But so deeply had the public come to have faith in the natural sciences that not a voice was raised in disbelief. The only question the public asked was, "When?" There is every reason to believe that the same sequence of events will oecur in connection with the behavioral sciences. First the publie ignores or views with disbelief; then as it discovers that the findhags of a science are more dependable than commonsense, it begins to use them; the widespread use of the knowledgeof a science creates a tremendous demand,so that menand moneyand effort are poured into the science; finally the development of the science spirals upward at an ever-increasing rate. It seems highly probable that this sequence will be observed in the behavioral sciences. Consequently even though the findings of these sciences are not widely used today’, there is every likelihood that they will be widely used tomorrow. Taz QussUONS Wehave in the makingthen a science of enormouspotential hnportance, an instrumentality whose soeial power will makeatomic energy seem feeble by comparison. And there is no doubt that the questions raised by this developmentwill be questions of vital importance for this and cominggenerations. Let us look at a few of these questions. Howshall we use the power of this new science? Whathappens to the individual person in this brave newworld? GrowingPowerof the Bebavloral Sciences 381 Whowill hold the power to use this newknowledge? Towardwhat end or purpose or value will this new type of knowledge be used? I shall try to makea small beginning in the consideration of these questions in the next lecture. P~EFERENCES I. Asch, SolomonE. Social Psychology. NewYork: Prentice-Hall, 1952, 450-483. 2. Beier, Ernst G. The effect of induced anxiety on SOmeaspects of intellectual functioning. Ph.D. thesis, Columbia University, 1949. 3. Bertalanffy, L. yon. A biologist looks at humannature. Science Monthly, 1956, g2, 33-41. Heron, and T. H. Scotu Effects of de4. Beston, W. H., Woodbum creased variation in the sensory environment. Canadian ]. Psycbol, 1954, g, 70-76. 5. Block, Jack, and Jeanne Block. Aninvestigation of the relationship between intolerance of anabiguity and ethnocentrism. ]. Personality, 1951, 19, 303-311. 6. Cameron,D. E. Psychic driving. Am. J. Psycbiat., 1956, 112, 502509. 7. Coch, Lester, and J. R. P. French, Jr. Overcomingresistance to change, HuraanRelations, 1948, 1, 512-$32. 8. Crutchfield, Richard S. Conformityand character. Arner. Psycbol., 1955, 10, 191-198. 9. Gordon, Thomas.Group-CenteredLeadership. Chapters 6 to 11. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1955. 10. Gough,H. E., and D. R. Peterson. The identification and measure. rnent of predispositional factors in crime and delinquency. ]. Consult. psycbol., 1952, 16, 207-212. 382 T~ BEHA~O~ SC~Ncm ~ ~ P~SON 11. Haire, M. Projective techniques in marketing research. ]. Marketing, April 1950, 14, 649-656. 12. Hess, E. H. An experimental analysis of imprinting -- a form of learning. Unpublished manuscript, 1955. 13. Hinlde, L. E., and H. G. Wolff. Communistinterrogation and indoctrination of "Enemies of the State." Analysis of methods used by the CommunistState Police. Arch. NeuroL Psyctaiat., 1956, 20, 115-174. 14. Hunt, H. F., and J. V. Brady. Someeffects of electro-convuL~ve shock on a conditioned emotional response ("amdety"). ]. Compar. PbysioL Psychol., 1951, 44, 88-98. 1L Janis, I. Personality correlates of susceptibility sonality, 1954, 22, 504-518. to persuasion. /. Per- 16. Kagan, J., and P. H. Mussen. Dependencythemes on the TATand group conformity. J. Consult. PsycboL, 1956, 20, 29-32. 17. Katz, D., N. Maccoby,and N. C. Morse. Productivity, superz, lsion, and morale in an office s/tuat/on. Parr I. AnnArbor: Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, 1950. 18. Meehl, P. E. Wanted-- a good cookbook. ~liner. Psycbol., 1956,11, 263-272. 19. Nagle, B. F. Productivity, employee attitudes, sensitivity. Personnel PsycboL, 1954, 7, 219-234. and supervisory 20. Olds, J. A physiolog/cal study of reward. In McCleUand,D. C. (Ed.). Studies in Motivation. NewYork: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1955, 134-143. 21. Oppenheimer, IL Analogy in science. Amer. Psycbol., 1956, 11, 127135. 22. Richard, James, in Group-CenteredLeadership, by ThemesGordon, Chapters 12 and 13. Boston: HoughtonMifflin Co., 1955. 23. Rogers, Carl R. Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: HoughtonMiffo fin Co., 1951. 24. Rogers, Carl R. and Rosalind F. Dymond (Eds.). Psychotherapyand personality change. University of Chicago Press, 1954. 25. Seeman, Jufius, and Nathaniel J. Raskin. Research perspectives in client-centered therapy, in O. H. Mowrer(Ed.). Pbychotherapy: Theory and Research, Chapter 9. NewYork: Ronald Press, 1953. 26. Skinner, B. F. The control of humanbehavior. Transactions New York Acad. Science, Series If, VoL17, No. 7, May1955, 547-551. GrowingPowerof the Bebuvloral Sciences 383 26a. ~ Pigeons in a Pefican, timer. Psycbol., 1960, 15, 28-37. 27. Smith, G. J. W., Spence, D. P., and Klein, G. S., Subliminal effects of verbal stimuli, ]our. Alto. ~ Soc. Psycbol., 1959, $9, 167-176. 28. Taft, R. Intolerance of amliigui~/ and ethnocentrism. J. Consu/t. Psycbol., 1956, 20, 153-154. 29. Thetford, William N. Anobiecfive measure of frustration tolerance in evaluating psychotherapy, in W. Wolff (Ed.). Success in psychotherapy, Chapter 2. NewYork: Grune and Stratton, 1952. 30. Whyte, W. H. The Organization Man. NewYork: Simon & Schuster, 1956. 31. WiUiams,S. B., and H. J. Leavitt. Groupopinion as a predictor of military leadership. ]. Consult. Psycbol., 1947, 11, 283-291. 2/ The Place of the Individual in the New World of the Behavioral Sciences ~ ~cr~mQLECrO~ I endeavored to point out, in a very Fs ketchy manner, the advances of the behavioral sciences in their ability to predict and control behavior. I tried to suggest the new world into which we will be advancing at an evermoreheadlong pace. TodayI want to consider the question of howwe--as individuals, as groups, as a culture -- will live in, will respond to, will adapt to, this brave new world. Whatstance will we take in the face of these new developments? I am going to describe two answers which have been given to this question, and then I wish to suggest some considerations which may, lead to a third answer. DENY AND IGNORE One attitude which we can take is to deny that these scientific advances are taking place, and simply take the view that there can be no study of humanbehavior which is truly scientific. Wecan hold that the humananimal cannot possibly take an objective attitude toward himself, and that therefore no real science of behavior can exist. Wecan say that man is always a free agent, in some sense that 384 The Place of the lndi~dual 38S makes scientific study of his behavior impossible. Not long ago, at a conference on the social sciences, curiously enough, I heard a well knowneconomist take just this view. And one of this country’s most noted theologians writes, "In any event, no scientific investigation of past behavior can becomethe basis of predictions of future behavior." (3, p. 47) The attitude of the general public is somewhatsimilar. Without necessarily denying the possibility of a behavioral science, the manin the street simply ignores the developmentswhich are taking phe~ To be sure he becomesexcited for a time whenhe hears it said that the Communistshave attempted to change the soldiers they have captured, by means of "brainwashing." He may show a mild reaction of annoyance to the revelations of a book such as Whyte’s (13) which shows how heavily, and in what manipulative fashion, the findings of the behavioral sciences are used by modern industrial corporations. But by and large he sees nothing in aU this to be concerned about, any more than he did in the first theoretical statements that the atom could be split. Wemay, if we wish, join him in ignoring the problem. Wemay go further, like the older intellectuals I have cited, and looking at the behavorial sciences maydechre that "there ain’t no such animaL" But since these reactions do not seemparticularly intelligent I shail leave them to describe a muchmore sophisticated and muchmore prevalent point of view. THE FORMULATION OF HUM~ LZFE IN TERMS OF SC~ENCm Amongbehavioral scientists it seems to be largely taken for granted that the findings of such science will be used in the prediction and control of humanbehavior. Yet most psychologists and other scientists have given little thought to what this would mean. An exception to this general tendency is Dr. B. F. Skinner of Harvard who has been quite explicit in urging psychologists to use the powers of control whichthey have in the interest of creating a better world. In an attempt to show what he means Dr. Skinner wrote a book some years ago entitled WaldenTwo(12), in which he gives a fictional account of what he regards as a Utopian communityin which the learnings of the behavioral sciences are fully utilized in all 386 THEB~vlo~ Scm~cmA~ro a’me Pm~oN aspects of life -- marriage, child rearing, ethical conduct, work, play, and artistic endeavor. I shall quote from his writings several times. There are also some writers of fiction who have seen the significance of the coming influence of the behavioral sciences. Aldous Huxley, in his Brave NewWorld (1), has given a horrifying picture of saccharine happiness in a scientifically managedworld, against which maneventually revolts. George OrweU,in 1994 (5), has drawn a picture of the world created by dictatorial power, in which the behavioral sciences are used as instruments of absolute control of individuals so that not behavior alone but even thought is controlled. The writers of science fiction have also played a role in visualizing for us some of the pomTaledevelopments in a world where behavior and personality are as much the subject of science as chemical compounds or electrical impulses. I should like to try to present, as well as I can, a simplified pietaLr¢ of the cultural pattern which emerges if we endeavor to shape human life in terms of the behavioral sciences. There is first of all the recognition, almost the assumption, thai: scientific knowledge is the power to manipulate. Dr. Skinner says: ’qNe must accept the fact that some kind of control of humanaffairs is inevitable. Wecannot use good sense in humanaffairs unless someone engages in the design and construction of environmental condiriom which affect the behavior of men. Environmentalchanges have always been the condition for the improvement of cultural patterns, and we can hardly use the more effective methods of science without makingchanges on a grander scale .... Science has turned up dangerous processes and materials before. To use the facts and veehulques of a science of manto the fullest extent without making some monstrous mistake will be difficult and obviously perilous. It is no time for self-deception, emotional indulgence, or the assumption of attitudes which are no longer useful." (10, p. 56-57) The next assumption is that such power to control is to be used. Skinner sees it as being used benevolently, though he recognizes the danger of its being misused. Huxleysees it as being used with benevolent intent, but actually creating a nightmare. Orwell describes the results if such power is used malignandy, to enhance the degree of regulation exercised by a dictatorial government. The. Place of the Indi,oiduaJ 387 STEPSIN THEPROCESS Let us look at some of the elements which are involved in the concept of the control of humanbehavior as mediated by the behavioral scienceS. Whatwould be the steps in the process by which a society might organize itself so as to formulate humanlife in terms of the science of man? First would come the selection of goals. In a recent paper Dr. Skinner suggests that one possible goal to be assigned to the behavioral technology is this: "Let manbe happy, informed, skillful, well-behaved, and productive" (10, p. 47). In his Walden Two, where he can use the guise of fiction to express his views, he becomes more expansive. His hero says, "Well, what do you say to the design of personalities? Wouldthat interest you? The control of temperament?Give methe specifications, and I’ll give you the man! Whatdo you say to the control of motivation, building the interests which will make men most productive and most successful? Does that seemto you fantastic? Yet someof the techniques are available, and more can be worked out experimentally. Think of the possibilities! . . . Let us control the lives of our children and see what we can makeof them." (12, p. 243) WhatSkinner is essentially saying here is that the current knowledge in the behavioral sciences plus that which the future will bring, will enable us to specify, to a degree which today would seem incredible, the kind of behavioral and personality results which we wish to achieve. This is obviously both an opportunity and a very heavy burden. The second element in this process would be one which is familiar to every scientist whohas worked in the field of applied science. Given the purpose, the goal, we proceed by the method of science -by controlled experimentation--to discover the means to these ends. If for example our present knowledge of the conditions which cause mento be productive is limited, further investigation and experimentation would surely lead us to new knowledge in this field. And still further work will provide us with the knowledge of even more effective means. The method of science is self-correcting in thus arriving at increasingly effective waysof achieving the purpose we have selected. 388 T~ B~oR~Sc~Nczs,~ ~ The third element in the control of humanbehavior through the behavioral sciences involves the question of power. As the conditions or methods are discovered by which to achieve our goal, some person or group obtains the power to establish those conditions or use those methods. There has been too little recognition of the problem involved in this. To hope that the power being madeavailable by the behavioral sciences will be exercised by the scientists, or by" a benevolent group, seems to me a hope little supported by either recent or distant history. It seems far morelikely that behavioral scientists, holding their present attitudes, will be in the position of the Germanrocket scientists specializing in guided missiles. First they" worked devotedly for Hider to destroy Russia and the United States. Nowdepending on whocaptured them, they work devotedly for Russia in the interest of destroying the United States, or devotedly for the United States in the interest of destroying Russia. If behavioral scientists are concerned solely with advancing their science, it seemsmost probable that they will serve the purposes of whatever individual or group has the power. But this is, in a sense a digression. The main point of this view is that someperson or group will have and use the power to put into effect the methods which have been disco-,~ed for achieving the desired goal. The fourth step in this process whereby a sueiety might formulate its life in terms of the behavioral sciences is the exposure of individuals to the methods and conditions mentioned. As individuals are exposed to the prescribed conditions this leads, with a high degree of probability, to the behavior which has been desired. Menthen become productive, if that has been the goal, or submissive, or whatever it has been decided to makethem. To give something of the flavor of this aspect of the process as seen by one of its advocates, let me again quote the hero of Walde~ Two. "Nowthat we knowhowpositive reinforcement works, and whynegative doesn’t" he says, commentingon the methodhe is advocating, "we can be more deliberate and hence more successful, in our cultural design. Wecan achieve a sort of control under which the controlled, though they are following a code muchmore scrupulously than was ever the case under the old system, nevertheless ~eel The Place of the Individual 389 free. They are doing what they want to do, not what they are forced to do. That’s the source of the tremendous power of positive reinforcement-- there’s no restraint and no revolt. By a careful design, we control not the final behavior, but the inclination to behave -- the motives, the desires, the wishes. The curious thing is that in that case the question o~ ~reedom never arises." (12, p. 218) Th-z P1crogz AND IT’S IMPHC~ONS Let me see if I can sum up very briefly the picture of the impact of the behavioral sciences upon the individual and upon society, as this impact is explicidy seen by Dr. Skinner, and implied in the attitudes and work of many, perhaps most, behavioral scientists. Behavioral science is clearly movingforward; the increasing power for control which it gives will be held by some one or some group; such an individual or group will surely choose the purposes or goals to be achieved; and most of us will then be increasingly controlled by means so subtle we will not even be aware of them as controls. Thus whether a council of wise psychologists (if this is not a contradiction in terms) or a Stalin or a Big Brother has the power, and whether the goal is happiness, or productivity, or resolution of the Oedipus complex, or submission, or love of Big Brother, we will inevitably find ourselves movingtoward the chosen goal, and probably thinking that we ourselves desire it. Thus if this line of reasoning is correct, it appears that some form of completely controlled society--a V~alden Twoor a 19g4--is coming. The fact that is would surely arrive piecemeal rather than all at once, does not greatly change the fundamental issues. Manand his behavior would becomea planned product of a scientific society. Youmaywell ask, "But what about individual freedom?What about the democratic concepts of the rights of the individual?" Here too Dr. Skinner is quite specific. He says quite bluntly. "The hypothesis that man is not free is essential to the application of scientific method to the study of humanbehavior. The free inner man who is held responsible for the behavior of the external biolo~cal organism is only a pre-scientific substitute for the kinds of causes which are discovered in the course of a scientific analysis. All these alternative causes lie outside the individual." (11, p. 447) 390 THzBEmWm~L 8C~C~ANnT~ ~-L~OS In another source he explains this at somewhatmore length. "As the use of science increases, we are forced to accept the theoretical structure with which science represents its facts. The difficulty is that this structure is clearly at odds with the traditional dem’ocratic conception of man. Every discovery of an event which has a part in shaping a man’s behavior seems to leave so muchthe less to be credited to the manhimself; and as such explanations becomemore and more comprehensive,the contribution which maybe claimed by the individual himself appears to approach zero. Man’svaunted creative powers, his original accomplishmentsin art, science and morals, his capacity to choose and our right to hold him responsible for the consequences of his choice--none of these is conspicuous in this new self-portrait. Man, we once believed, was free to express himself in art, music and literature, to inquire into nature, to seek salvation in his ownway. He could initiate action and makespuntaneous and eapfieions changes of course. Under the most extreme duress some sort of choice remained to him. He could resist any effort to eontxol him, though it might cost him his life. But science insists that action is initiated by forces impinging upon the individual, and that caprice is only another namefor behavior for which we have not yet found a cause." (10, p. 52-53) The democratic philosophy of humannature and of government is seen by Skinner as having served a useful purpose at one time. "In rallying men against tyranny it was necessary that the individual be strengthened, that he be taught that he had rights and could govern himself. To give the commonman a new conception of his worth, his dignity, and his power to save himself, both here and hereafter, was often the only resource of the revolutionist." (10, p. 53) regards this philosophy as being now out of date and indeed an obstacle "if it prevents us from applying to humanaffairs the science of man." (10, p. 54) A PERSONAL REACTION I have endeavored, up to this point, to give an objective picture of some of the developments in the behavioral sciences, and an objective picture of the kind of society which might emerge out of these developments. I do however have strong personal reactionS The Place of tbe Individual 391 to the kind of world I have been describing, a world which Skinner explicitly (and manyother scientists implicitly) expect and hope for in the future. To me this kind of world would destroy the human person as I have cometo knowhim in the deepest momentsof psychotherapy. In such momentsI amin relationship with a person xvho is spontaneous, who is respomibly free, that is, aware of this freedom to choose who he will be, and aware also of the consequences of his choice. To believe, as Skinner holds, that all this is an illusion, and that spontaneity, freedom, responsibility, and choice have no real existence, would be impossible for me. I feel that to the limit of my ability I have played mypart in advancing the behavioral sciences, but if the result of my efforts and those of others is that man becomesa robot, created and controlled by a science of his ownmaking, then I am very unhappyindeed. If the good life of the future consists in so conditioning individuals through the control of their environment, and through the control of the rewards they receive, that they w]ll be inexorably productive, well-behaved, happy or whatever, then I want none of it. To me this is a pseudo-formof the good life which includes ever)thing save that which makes it good. And so I ask myself, is there any flaw in the logic of this development? Is there any alternative view as to what the behavioral sciences might mean to the individual and to society? It seems to me that I perceive such a flaw, and that I can conceive of an alternative vieW. These I would like to set before you. EI~I~SAND VALUES IN RELATION TOSCIENCE It seems to methat the view I have presented rests upon a faulty perception of the relationship of goals and values to the enterprise of science. The significance of the purpose of a scientific undertaking is, I believe, grossly underestinlated. I would like to state a taropronged thesis which in my estimation deserves consideration. Then I xvill elaborate the meaning of these taro points. 1. In any scientific endeavor-- whether "pure" or applied science there is a prior personal subjective choice of the purpose or value which that scientific work is perceived as serving. 2- This subjective value choice which brings the scientific en- 392 TimB~AwoaA~ Sca~ A~T~ Pv~so~ deavor into being must always lie outside of that endeavor, and can never becomea part of the science involved in that endeavor. Let me illustrate the first point from Dr. Skinner’s writings. When he suggests that the task for the behavioral sciences is to makeman "productive," "well-behaved," etc., it is obvious that he is making a choice. He might have chosen to makemen submissive, dependent, and gregarious, for example. Yet by his own statement in another context man’s "capacity to choose," his freedom to select his course and to initiate action--these powers do not exist in the scientific picture of man. Here is, I believe, the deep-seated contradiction, or paradox. Let me spell it out as clearly as I can. Science, to be sure, rests on the assumption that behavior is caused--that a specified event is followed by a consequent event. Hence all is determined, nothing is free, choice is impossible. Bat we must recall that science itself, and each specific scientific endeavor, each change of course in a scientific research, each interpretation of the meaningof a scientific finding and each decision as to howthe finding shall be applied, rests upon a personal subiective choice. Thus science in general exists in the sameparadoxical situation as does Dr. Skinner. A personal subiective choice made by man sets in motion the operations of science, which in time proclaims that there can be no such thing as a personal subiective choice. I shall make some commentsabout this continuing paradox at a later point. I stressed the fact that each of these choices initiating or furthering the scientific venture, is a value choice. The scientist investigates this rather than that, because he feels the first investigation has more value for him. He chooses one method for his study rather than another because he values it more highly. He interprets his findings in one way rather than another because he believes the first way is closer to the truth, or more valid--in other words that it is closer to a criterion which he values. Nowthese value choices are never a part of the scientific venture itself. The value choices connected with a particular scientific enterprise always and necessarily lie outside of that enterprise. I wish to makeit clear that I amnot saying that values cannot be included as a subject of science. It is not true that science deals only with certain classes of "facts" and that these classes do not include The Place of the Individual 393 values. It is a bit more complex than that, as a simple illustration or t’wo maymakeclear. If I value knowledge of the "three R’s" as a goal of education, the methods of science can give meincreasingly accurate information as to how this goal may be achieved. If I value problem-solving ability as a goal of education, the scientific methodcan give me the same kind of help. Nowif I wish to determine whether problem-solving ability is "better" than knowledgeof the three R’s, then scientific method can also study those two values, but only- and this is very important --only in terms of some other value which I have subjectively chosen. I mayvalue college success. Then I can determine whether problem-sulving ability or knowledge of the three R’s is most closely associated with that value. I mayvalue personal integration or vocational success or responsible citizenship. I can determine whether problem-solving ability or knowledgeof the three R’s is "better" for achieving any one of these values. But the value or purpose which gives meaning to a particular scientific endeavor must always He outside of that endeavor. Thoughour concern in these lectures is largely with applied science what I have been saying seems equally true of su-ealled pure science. In pure science the usual prior subjective value choice is the discovery of truth. But this is a subjective choice, and science can never say whether it is the best choice, save in the light of some other value. Geneticists in Russia, for example, had to makea subjective choice of whether it was better to pursue truth, or to discover facts which upheld a governmentaldogma.Whichchoice is "better"? Wecould make a scientific investigation of those alternatives, hut only in the light of some other subjectively chosen value. If, for example, we value the survival of a culture then we could begin to investigate with the methods of science the question as to whether pursuit of truth or support of governmental dogmais most closely associated with cultural survival. Mypoint then is that any scientific endeavor, pure or applied, is carried on in the pursuit of a purpose or value which is subjectively chosen by persons. It is important that this choice be madeexplicit, since the particular value which is being sought can never be tested 394 T~ BE~t~woR~ ~css AND~ Pin’sos or evaluated, confirmed or denied, by the scientific endeavor to which it gives birth and meaning. The initial purpose or value always and necessarily lies outside the scope of the scientific effort which it sets in motion. Amongother things this meansthat if we choose someparticular goal or series of goals for humanbeings, and then set out on a large scale to control humanbehavior to the end of achieving those goals, we are locked in the rigidity of our initial choice, because such a scientific endeavor can never transcend itself to select new goals. Only subjective humanpersons can do that. Thus if we choose as our goal the state of happiness for humanbeings (a goal deservedly ridiculed by Aldous Huxley in Brave Ne,w World), and if we involved all of society in a successful scientific program by which people becamehappy, we would be locked in a colossal rigidity in which no one wouldbe free to question this goal, because our scientific operations could not transcend themselves to question their guiding purposes. Andwithout laboring this point, I would remark that colossal rigidity, whether in dinosaurs or dictatorships, has a very poor record of evolutionary survival. If, however, a part of our scheme is to set free some "planners" whodo not have to be happy, whoare not controlled, and who are therefore free to choose other values, this has several meanings. It means that the purpose we have chosen as our goal is not a sufficient and satisfying one for humanbeings, but must be supplemented. It also means that if it is necessary to set up an elite group which is free, then this shows all too clearly that the great majority are only the slaves- no matter by what high-sounding namewe call them --of those who select the goals. Perhaps, however, the thought is that a continuing scientific endeavor will evolve its owngoals; that the initial findings will alter the directions, and subsequent findings will alter them still further and that the science somehowdevelops its ownpurpose. This seemS to be a view implicitly held by manyscientists. It is surely a reasonable description, but it overlooks one element in this continuing development, which is that subjective personal choice enters in at every point at which the direction changes. The findings of a science, the results of an experiment, do not and never can tell us The Place of the Individual 395 what next scientific purpose to pursue. Even in the purest of science, the scientist must decide what the findings mean, and must subjectively choose what next step will be most profitable in the pursuit of his purpose. Andff we are speaking of the application of scientific knowledge, then it is distressingly clear that the increasing scientific knowledge of the structure of the atom carries with it no necessary choice as to the purpose to which this knowledge will be put. This is a subjective personal choice which must be madeby manyindividuals. Thus I return to the proposition with which I began this section of my remarks-- and which I now repeat in different words. Science has its meaning as the objective pursuit of a purpose which has been subjectively chosen by a person or persons. This purpose or value can never be investigated by the particular scientific experiment or investigation to which it has given birth and meaning. Consequently, any discussion of the control of humanbeings by the behavioral sciences must first and most deeply concern itself with the subjectively chosen purposes which such an application of science is intended to implement. AN ALTERNATIVE SET OF VALUES If the line of reasoning I have been presenting is valid, then it opens new doors to us. If we frankly face the fact that science takes off from a subjectively chosen set of values, then we are free to select the values we wish to pursue. Weare not limited to such stultifying goals as producing a controlled state of happiness, productivity, and the like. I would like to suggest a radically different alternative. Supposewe start xsSth a set of ends, values, purposes, quite different from the type of goals we have been considering. Suppose we do this quite openly, setting them forth as a possible value choice to be accepted or rejected. Suppose we select a set of values which focuses on fluid elements of process, rather than static attributes. Wemight then value: ~lan as a procegs of becoming;as a process of achieving worth and dignity through the development of his potentialities; The individtml humanbeing as a self-actualizing process, moving on to more challenging and enriching experiences; 396 T~ Br~wo~Sc~cz~ ~ ~ l’~soN The process by which the individual creatively adapts to an evernew and changing world; The process by which knowledgetranscends itself, as for example the theory of rehtivity transcended Newtonianphysics, itself to be transcended in some future day by a new perception. If we select values such as these we turn to our science and techo nology of behavior with a very different set of questions. Wewin want to knowsuch things as these: Can science aid us in the discovery of new modes of richly rewarding living? More meaningful and satisfying modes of interpersonal rehtinnships? Can science inform us as to how the humanrace can becomea more intelligent participant in its own evolution--its physical, psychological and social evolution? Can science inform us as to ways of releasing the creative capacity of individuals, which seem so necessary if we are to survive in this fantastically expanding atomic age? Dr. Oppenheimerhas pointed out (4) that knowledge, which used to double in millenia or centuries, now doubles in a generation or a decade. It appears that we will need to discover the utmost in release of creativity if we are to be able to adapt effectively. In short, can science discover the methods by which man can most readily becomea continually developing and self-transcending process, in his behavior, his thinking, his knowledge?Can science predict and release an essentially "unpredictable" freedom? It is one of the virtues of science as a methodthat it is as able to advance and implementgoals and purposes of this sort as it is to serve static values such as states of being well-informed, happy, obedient. Indeed we have some evidence of this. A S~ALL EXAMPLE I will perhaps be forgiven if I documentsomeof the possibilities along this line by turning to psychotherapy, the field I knowbest. Psychotherapy, as Meerloo (2) and others have pointed out, can be one of the most subtle tools for the control of one person by another. The therapist can subtly mold individuals in imitation of himself. He can cause an individual to becomea submissive and conforming being. Whencertain therapeutic principles are used in The Place of the Individual 397 extreme fashion, we call it brainwashing, an instance of the disintegration of the personality and a reformulation of the person along lines desired by the controlling individual. So the principles of therapy can be used as a most effective means of external control of humanpersonality and behavior. Can psychotherapy be anything else? Here I find the developments going on in client-centered psychotherapy (8) an exciting hint of what a behavioral science can do in achieving the kinds of values I have stated. Quite aside from being a somewhat new orientation in psychotherapy, this development has important implications regarding the relation of a behavioral science to the control of humanbehavior. Let me describe our experience as k relates to the issues of the present disenssion. In client-centered therapy, we are deeply engaged in the prediction and influencing of behavior. As therapists we institute certain attitudinal conditions, and the client has relatively little voice in the establishment of these conditions. Very briefly we have found that the therapist is most effective if he is: (a) genuine, integrated, transparendy real in the relationship; (b) acceptant of the client a separate, different, person, and acceptant of each fluctuating aspect of the client as it comesto expression; and (c) sensitively empathic in his understanding, seeing the world through the client’s eyes. Our research permits us to predict that if these attitudinal conditions are instituted or established, certain behavioral consequences will ensue. Putting it this waysounds as if we are again hack in the familiar groove of being able to predict behavior, and hence able to control it. But precisely here exists a sharp difference. The conditions we have chosen to establish predict such behavioral consequences as these: that the client wili becomemore self-directing, less rigid, more open to the evidence of his senses, better organized and integrated, more similar to the ideal which he has chosen for himself. In other words we have established by external control conditions which we predict will be followed by internal control by the individual, in pursuit of internally chosen goals. Wehave set the conditions which predict various cla~ses of behaviors--self-directing behaviors, sensitivity to realities within and without, flexible adaptiveness- which are by their vcr.v nature unpredictable in their specifics. The conditions we have established Tim Bm~Awoa~ Sc~c~ ANDT~ Pm~ON predict behavior which is essentially "free." Our recent research (9) indicates that our predictions are to a significant degree corroborated, and our commitmentto the scientific methodcauses us to believe that more e~ective means of achieving these goals may be realized. Research exists in other fields--industry, education, group dy= uamics-- which seems to support our own findings. I believe it may be conservatively stated that scientific progress has been made in identifying those conditions in an interpersonal relationship which, if they exist in B, are followed in A by greater maturity in behavior, less dependence upon others, an increase in expressiveness as a person, an increase in variability, flexibility and effectiveness of adaptation, an increase in self-responsibility and seif-direction. Andquite in contrast to the concern expressed by somewe do not find that the creatively adaptive behavior which results from such self-directed variability of expression is too chaotic or too fluid. Rather, the individual whois open to his experience, and self-directing, is harmonious, not chaotic, ingenious rather than random, as he orders his responses imaginatively toward the achievement of his own purposes. His creative actions are no more a chaotic accident than was Einstein’s development of the theory of relativity. Thus we find ourselves in fundamental agreement with John Dewey’sstatement: "Science has madeits way by releasing, not by suppressing, the elements of variation, of invention and innovation, of novel creation in individuals." (7, p. 359) Wehave come believe that progress in personal life and in group living is madein the same way, by releasing variation, freedom, creativity. A POSSIBLE CONCEPT OFTHECONTROL OFHUMAN B~HAWOa It is quite clear that the point of view I am expressing is in sharp contrast to the usual conception of the relationship of the behavioral sciences to the control of humanbehavior, previously mentioned. In order to makethis contrast even more blunt, I will state this possibility in a form parallel to the steps which I described before. 1. It is possible for us to choose to value manas a self-actualizing process of beconfing; to value creativity, and the process by which "knowledge becomes seif-transcending. Tbe Place o[ tbe Individual 399 2. Wecan proceed, by the methods of science, to discover the conditions which necessarily precede these processes, and through continuing experimentation, to discover better means of achieving these purposes. 3. It is possible for individuals or groups to set these conditions, with a minimumof power or control. According to present knowledge, the only authority necessary is the authority to establish certain qualifies of interpersonal relationship. 4. Exposed to these conditions, present knowledge suggests that individuals becomemore self-responsible, makeprogress in selfactualization, becomemore flexible, more unique and varied, more creatively adaptive. 5. Thus such an initial choice would inaugurate the beginnings of a social system or subsystem in which values, knowledge,adaptive skills, and even the concept of science would be continually changing and self-transcending. The emphasis would be upon man as a process of becoming. I believe it is clear that such a view as I have been describing does not lead to any definable Utopia. It would be impossible to predict its final outcome. It involves a step by step development, based upon a continuing subjective choice of purposes, which are implementedby the behavioral sciences. It is in the direction of the "open society," as that term has been defined by Popper (6), where individuals carry responsibility for personal decisions. It is at the opposite pole from his concept of the closed society,, of which WaldenTwowould be an example. I trust it is also evident that the whole emphasis is upon process, not upon end states of being. I am suggesting that it is by choosing to value certain qualitative elements of the process of becoming, that we can find a pathway toward the open society. THECHOICE It is my hope that I have helped to clarify the range of choice which will lie before us and our children in regard to the behavioral sciences. Wecan choose to use our growing knowledgeto ertshve ~0 Tim B~m~wo~ Scm~c~A~m~m PmusoN people in ways never dreamedof before, depersonalizing them, conu’olling them by means so carefully selected that they will perhaps never be aware of their loss of personhood. Wecan choose to utilize our scientific knowledgeto makemen necessarily happy, wellbehaved, and productive, as Dr. Skinner suggest~ Wecan, if we wish, choose to make men submissive, conforming, docile. Or at the other end of the spectrum of choice we can choose to use the behavioral sciences in ways which will free, not control; which will bring about constructive variability, not conformity; which will develop creativity, not contentment; which will facilitate each person in his serf-directed process of becoming; which will aid individuals, groups, and even the concept of science, to becomeselftranscending in freshly adaptive ways of meeting life and its problems. The choice is up to us, and the humanrace being what it is, we are likely to stumble about, making at times some nearly disastrous value choices, and at other times highly comstructive ones. If we choose to utilize our scientific knowledge to free men, then it will demandthat we live openly and frankly with the great paradox of the behavioral sciences. Wewill recognize that behavior, whenexamined scientifically, is surely best understood as determined by prior causation. This is the great fact of science. But responsible personal choice, which is the most essential element in being a person, which is the core experience in psychotherapy, which exists prior to any scientific endeavor, is an equally prominent fact in our liveg Wewill have to live with the realization that to deny the realit’/of the experience of responsible personal choice is as stultifying, as closed-minded, as to deny the possibility of a behavioral science. That these two important elements of our experience appear to be in contradiction has perhaps the same significance as the contradiction between the wave theory and the corpuscular theory of fight, both of which can be shown to be true, even though incompatible. Wecannot profitably deny our subjective life, any more than we can deny the objective description of that life. In conclusion then, it is my contention that science cannot come into being without a personal choice of the values we wish to achieve. And these values we choose to implement wiU forever lie outside of the science which implementsthem; the goals we select, the ~rloe Place of the Indi~lual 401 purposes we wish to follow, must always be outside of the science "which achieves them. To methis has the encouraging meaningthat the humanperson, with his capacity of subjective choice, can and xvill always exist, separate from and prior to any of his scientific landertakings. Unless as individuals and groups we choose to relinquish our capacity of subjective choice, we will always remain fre¢ persons, not simply pawns of a serf-created behavioral scienc¢. REFEKENCES 1. Huxley, A. Brave NewWorld. NewYork and London:Harper and Bros., 1946. 2. Meerloo, J. A. M. Medication into submission: the danger of therapeutic coercion. ]. Nerv. Ment. D/s., 1955, 122, 353-360. 3. Niebuhr, IL The Self and the Dramasof History. NewYork: ~-ibher, 1955. 4. Oppenheimer, R. Science and our times. Roosevelt Un?versity Occasional Papers. 1956, 2, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Orwell, G. 1984. NewYork: Harcourt, Brace, 1949; NewAmerican Library, 1953. 6. Popper, K. R. The OpenSociety m~d Its Enemies. London: Routledge and KeganPaul, 1945. 7. Ramer, J. (Ed.). Intelligence in the ModernWorld: ]obn Dewey’s Philosophy. NewYork: Modem Library, 1939. 8. Rogers, C. R. Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: HoughtonMifflith 1951. (Eds.). Psychotherapyand Per9- Rogers, C. R. and Rosalind Dymond sonality Cba’nge. University of ChicagoPress, 1954. 10. Skinner, B. F. Freedomand the control of men. diner. Scbol~, Winter, 1955-56, 25, 47-65. 402 T~ B~-~VIOL~L Sc~.~cLs ~ "r~ PERSON 11. Skinner, B. F, Science and HumanBehavior. NewYork: Macmillan, 1953. Quotation by permission of The Mac~llan Co. 12. Skinner, B. F. WaldenTz~o. NewYork: Macmillan 1948. Quotations by permission of The Macw_illan Co. 13. Whyre, W. H. The Organization Man. NewYork: Simon& Schuster, 1956. Appendix Chronological PUBLICATIONS Bibliography OF CARL R. Roc~as 1930-1960 inclusive 1930 With C. W. Carson. Intelligence as a factor in campingactivitie~ CampingMagazine, 1930, 3 (3), 8-11. 1931 ~eas’aring Personality Adjustment in Children Nine to Thirteen. New York: Teachers College, ColumbiaUniversity, Bureau of Publications, 1931, 107 pp. ~q Test of Personality Adjustment. NewYork: Association Press, 1931. With M. E. Rappaport. Wepay for the Smiths. Survey Graphic, 1931, 19, 508 ft. 1933 A good foster home: Its achievements and limitations. Mental Hygiene, 1933, 17, 21-40. Also published in F. Lowry(Ed.), Readings in Social Case Work. ColumbiaUniversity Press, 1939, 417-436. 1936 Social workers and legislation. Quarterly Bulletin NewYork State Conf erence on Social Work, 7 (3), 1936, 3-9. 1937 Three surveys of treamlent measures used with children. Amer. 1. Ortbopsycbiat., 1937, 7, 48-57. 4O3 404 A~pE~,rort The clinical psychologist’s approach to personality problems. The Family, 1947,18, 233-243. 1938 A. diagnostic study of Rochester youth. N. IT. State Conference on Social Work. Syracuse: 1938, 48-$4. 1939 The Clinical Treatment of the Problem Child. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1939, 393 pp. Neededemphasesin the training of clinical psychologists. ]. Consult. Psychol., 1939, 3, 141-143. Authority and case work ~ are they compatible? Quarterly Bu//etin, N. F. State Conference on Social Work. Albany: 1939, 16-24. 1940 The processes of therapy. ]. Consult, Psycbol., 1940, 4~ 161-164. 1941 Psychology in clinical practice. In J. S. Gray (Ed.), Psychology in Use. NewYork: American Book Company,1941, 114-167. With C. C. Bennett. Predicting the outcomes of treatment. /liner. J. Orthopsychlat., 1941, 11, 210-221. With C. C. Bennett. The clinical significance of problem syndromes. ~liner. ]. Orthopsychiat., 1941, ll, 222-229. 1942 The psychologist’s contributions to parent, child, and communityproblems. ]. Consult. Psychol., 1942, 6, 8-18. A study of the mental health problems in three representative elementary" schools. In T. C. Holy et al., A Study of Health and Physical Education in ColumbusPublic Schools. Ohio State Univer., Bur. of Educ. Res. Monogr., No. 25, 1942, 130-161. Mental health problems in three elementary schools. Educ. Reseorcb Bulletin, 1942, 21, 69-79. The use of electrically recorded interviews in improving psychotherapeutlc techniques, diner ]. Orthopsychiat., 1942,12, 429-434. Counseling and Psychotherapy. Boston: HoughtonMifflin, 1942, 450 pp. Translated into Japanese and published by Sogensha Press, Tokyo, 1951. 1943 Therapy in guidance clinics. J. Abnorm. Soc. PsycboL, 1943, 35, 284-289. Also published in R. Watson (Ed.), Readings in Clinical Psychology. NewYork: Harper and Bros., 1949, 519-527. A.l,t~a~tx 40~ 1944 Adjustment after Combat.ArmyAir Forces Flexible GunnerySchool, Fort Myers, Florida. Restricted Publication, 1944, 90 pp. The development of insight in a counseling relationship. ]. Consult. PsychoL, 1944, 8, 331-341. Also published in A. H. Brsyfield (Ed.), Readings on ModernMethods of Counseling. NewYork: AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1950, 119-132. The psychological adiustments of discharged service personnel Psycb. Bulletin, 1944, 41,689-696. 1945 The nondirective methodas a technique for social research. Amer. ]. ¯Sociology, 1945, Y0, 279-283. Counseling. Review of Educ. Research, 1945, lY, 155-163. Dealing with individuals in USO.USOProgramServices Bulletin, 1945. k counseling viewpoint for the USOworker. USOProgramServices Bulletin, 1945. With V. M. Axline. A tescher-therapist deals with a handicapped child. ]. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol., 1945, 40, 119-142. With R. Dicks and S. B. Wortis. Current trends in counseling, a symlPosium. Marriage andFarail7 Living, 7 (4), 1945. 1946 ]Psychometric tests and cfient-centered counseling. Educ. PsychoL iVlea.emt., 1946, 6, 139-144. Significant aspects of client-centered therapy, diner. Psychologist, 1946, 1, 415-422. Translated into Spanish and published in Rev. PsicoL Gen. ~qpL, Madrid, 1949, 4, 215-237. l~ecent research in nondirecrive therapy and its implications. Amer. ]. Orthopsychiat., 1946, 16, 581-588. With G. A. Muencli. Counseling of emotional blocking in an aviator. ]. Abnorm.Soc. Psyehol.~ 1946, 41,207-216. With J. L. Wallen. Counseling with Returned Servicemen. NewYork: McGraw-Hill,1946, 159 pp. 1947 Current trends in psychotherapy. In W. Dennis (Ed.), Current Trends in Psychology, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1947, 109-137. Someobservations on the organization of personality. Amer. Psycbologig, 1947, 2, 358-368. Also published in A. Kuenzli (Ed.), The phenomenological Problem. NewYork: Harper and Bros., 1959, 4975. "the case of MaryJane Tilden. In W. U. Snyder (Ed.), Casebook of Nondirective Cowaseling. Boston: HoughtonMiftiin, 1947, 129-203. 406 Ammsmx 1948 Research in psychotherapy: RoundTable, 1947. Amer. 1. Ortbopsyckiat., 1948, lg, 96-100. Dealing ,with social tensions: d Oresentation of client-centered counseling as a meansof handling interpersonal conflict. NewYork: Hinds, Haydenand Eldredge, Inc., 1948, 30 pp. Also published in Pastoral Psyctoology, 1952,3 (28), 14-20; 3 (29), 37-44. Divergent trends in methodsof improvingadjustment. HarvardEducational Rev/ew, 1948, 1R, 209-219. Also in Pastoral Psychology, 1950, l (8), 11-18. Someimplications of client-centered counseling for college personnel work. Educ. Psycbol. Measmt., 1948, 8, 540-549. ALso published in College and University, 1948, and in Registrar’s Journal, 1948. With B. L. Kell and Helen McNeil. The role of self-understanding in the prediction of behavior. ]. Consult. PsyctooL, 1948,12, 174-186. 1949 The attitude and orientation of the counselor in cllent-centered therapy. ]. Consult. PsyclooL, 1949,15, 82-94. A coordinated research in psychotherapy: A non-objective introduction. ]. Consult. Psycbol., 1949, 15, 149-153. 1950 Significance of the self-regarding attitudes and perceptions. In M. L. Reymert (Ed.), Feelings and Emotions. NewYork: MeCraw-Hill, 1950. 374-382. Also published in Gorlow, L., and W. Katkovsky (Eds.), Readings in ttoe Psychology of Adjustment. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, 1959. A current formulation of client-centered therapy. Social Service Re-a/eqo, 1950, 24, 442450. Whatis to be our basic professional relationship? Annals of Allergy, 1950, 8, 234-239. Also published in M. H. Krout (Ed.), Psychology, Psychiatry, and doe Public Interest. University of Minnesota Press, 1956, 135-145. With R. Becker. A basic orientation for counseling. Pastoral Psychology, 1950, 1 (1), 26-34. With D. G. Marquis and E. R. Hilgard. ABEPP policies and procedures. Amer. Psyctoologist, . , 1950, 407-408. 1951 Whereare we going in clinical psychology> 1. Consult. PsycboL, 1951, lY, 171-177. ,~P~ENDrr 407 Cllent-Centered Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications, and Theory. Boston: HoughtonMifflin, 1951, 560 pp. Also translated into Japanese and published by lwasaki Shoten Press, 1955. Perceptual reorganization in cllent-centered therapy. In R. R. Blake and G. V. Ramsey(Eds.), Perception: An Approach to Personality. ]MewYork: Ronald Press, 1951, 307-327. Cllent-centered therapy: A helping process. The University of Chicago RoundTable, 1951, 698, 12-21. Studies in client-centered psychotherapy III: The ease of Mrs. Oak-a research analysis. PsychoL Serv. Center ]., 1951, 5, 47-165. Also published in C. R. Rogers and Rosalind F. Dymond(Eds.), Psychotherapy and Personality Change. University of Chicago Presa, 1954, 259-348. Through the eyes of a ellen~ Pastoral Psychology, 2 (16), 32-40; (17) 45-50; (18) 26-32. 1951. With T. Gordon, D. L. Gratumonand J. Seeman. Studies in clientcentered psychotherapy I: Developing a program of research in psychotherapy. Psychol. Sew. Center ]., 1951, 3, 3-28. Also published in C. R. Rogers and Rosalind F. Dymond(Eds.), Psychotherapy and Personality Change. University of Chicago Press, 1954, 12-34. 19Y2 Communication:Its blocking and facilitation. Northwestern University Information, 1952, 20, 9-15. Reprinted in ETC, 1952, 9, 83-88; in Harvard Bus. Rev., 1952, 30, 46-50; in HumanRelations for Managemerit, E. C. Bursk (Ed.). NewYork: Harper and Bros., 1956, 150-158. French translation in Hommes et Teclraiques, 1959. A personal formulation of client-centered therapy. Marriage and Family Living, 1952, 14, 341-361. Also published in C. E. Vincent (Ed.), Readings in Marriage Counseling. NewYork: T. Y. Crowell Co., 1957, 392-423. Client-centered psychotherapy. Scienti~qc American, 1952, 187, 66-74. With R. H. Segel. Client-Centered Therapy: Parts 1 and I1. 16 ram. motion picture with sound. State College, Pa.: Psychological Cinema Register, 1952. 1953 Somedirections and end points in therapy. In O. H. Mowrer(Ed.), Psychotherapy: Theory and Research. NewYork: Ronald Press, 1953, 44-68. A research program in client-centered therapy. Res. Publ. ~qss. Nerv. Mont. Dis., 1953, 31j 106-113. ~pr.~mng The interest in the practice of psychotherapy. Amer. Psychologist, 1953, 8, 48-50. With G. W. Brooks, 1L S. Driver, W. V. Merrihue, P. Pigors, and A. J. Rinella. Removingthe obstacles to good employee communicafion~ ManagementRecord, lY (1), 1953, 9-11, 32-40. 1954 Becominga person. Oberlin College Nellie Heldt Lecture Series. Oberlin: Oberlin Printing Co., 1954. 46 pp. Reprinted by the HoggFoundation for Mental Hygiene, University of Texas, 1956, also in Pastoral Psychology, 1956, 7 (61), 9-13, and 1956, 7 (63), 16-26. Also fished in S. Doniger (Ed.), Healing, Humanand Divine. NewYork: .Association Press, 1957, $7--67. Towardsa theory of creativity. ETC:d Rev/e’wof General Semantics, 1954, 11, 249-260. Also published in H. Anderson(Ed.), Creativity and Its Cultivation. NewYork: Harper and Bros., 69-82. The case of Mr. Bebb: The analysis of a failure case. In C. R. Rogers, and Rosalind F. Dymond (Ed~), Psychotherapyand porsona//ty Change. University of Chicago Press, 1954, 349--409. Changes in the maturity of behavior as related to therapy. In C. IL Rogers, and Rosalind F. Dymond(Eds.), Psychotherapy and Personality Change. University of Chicago Press, 1954, 215-237. An overview of the research and some questions for the future. In C. 11. Rogers, and Rosalind F. Dymond(Eds.), Psychotherapy and Personality Change. University of Chicago Press, 1954, 413-434. With Rosalind F. Dymond (Ed~). Psychotherapy and Personality Change. University of Chicago Press, 1954, 447 pp. 1955 A personal view of some issues facing psychologLsts, diner. Psychologist, 1955,10, 247-249. Personality change in psychotherapy. The Internatlonal Journal of Social Psychiatry, 1955, I, 31-41. Persons or science? A philosophical question. Ame¢.Psychologist, 1955, 10, 267-278. Also published in Pastoral Psychology, 1959, 10 (Nos. 92, 93). With IL H. SegeL Psychotherapy Begins: The Case of Mr. Lin. 16 mn’u motion picture with sound. State College, Pa.: Psychological Cinema Register, 1955. With R. H. SegeL Psychotherapy in Process: The Case of Miss Mun. 16 mm.motion picture with sound. State College, Pa.: Psychological Cinema Register, 1955. ~PPZ~DrZ 409 1956 IrnpHcarlons of recent advances in the prediction and control of behavior. Teachers College Record, 1956, Y7, 316-322. Also published in E. L. Harrley, and R. E. Harrley (Eds.), Outside Readings in Psychology. NewYork: T. Y. Crowell Co., 1957, 3-10. Also publlshed in R. S. Daniel (Ed.), ContemporaryReadings in G~eral Psychology. Boston: HoughtonMifflin, 1960. CHent-eemeredtherapy: A current view. In F. Fromm-Reichmann, and J. L. Moreno (Eds.), Progress in Psychotherapy. NewYork: Grune & Strarton, 1956, 199-209. Review of Reinhold Niebuhr’s The Self and the Dramasof History, Chicago Theological Seminary Register, 1956, 46, 13-14. Also published in Pastoral Psychology, 1958, 9, No. 85, 15-17. A counseling approach to humanproblems. Amer. ]. of Nursing, 1956, Yc, 994-~7. Whatit meansto becomea persom In C. E. Mous~kas(Ed.), The Self. NewYork: Harper and Bros., 1956, 195-211. Intellectualized psychotherapy. Reviewof George Kelly’s The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Contemporary Psychology, 1, 1956, 357-358. Someissues concerning the control of humanbehavior. (Symposium with B. F. Skinner) Science, November1956, 124, No. 3231, 10571066. Also published in L. Gorlow, and W. Katkovsky (Eds.), Readings in the Psychology of Adjustment. NewYork: McGraw-HilL 1959, $00-522. With E. J. Shoben, O. H. Mowrer,G. A. Kimble, and J. G. Miller. Behavior theories and a counseling case. ]. Counseling Psychol., 1956, J, 107-124. 1957 The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. ]. Conmh.Psycbol., 21, 1957, 95-103. French translation in ltommes et Techniques, 1959. Personal thoughts on teaching and learning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Summer,1957, 3, 241-243. Also published in Improving College and University Teaching, 6, 1958, 4-5. A note on the nature of man. ]. Counseling Prychol., 1957, 4, 199-203. Also published in Pastoral Psychology, 1960, 11, No. 104, 23-26. Training individuals to engage in the therapeutic process. In C. IL Strother (Ed.), Psychologyand Mental Health. Washington,D. C.: Amer. Psychological Assn., 1957, 76-92. A therapist’s view of the good life. The Humanist, 17, 1957, 291-300. 410 _A_ppZ~’D~ 1958 A process conception of psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 1958, 13, 142-149. The characteristics of a helping relationship. Personnel ~mdGuidance Journal, 1958, 37, 6-16. 1959 A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch(Ed.), Psychology: .4 Study of a Science, Vol. III. Formulations of the Person and the Social Context. NewYork: McGraw-HilL1959, 186-256. SignLqcant learning: In therapy and in education. Educational Leadership, 1959,16, 232-242. A tentative scale for the measurementof process in psychotherapy. In E. Rubinstein (Ed.), Research in Psychotherapy. Washington, D. C.: Amer. Psychological Assn., 1959, 96-107. The essence of psychotherapy: A client-centered view. Annals of Psychotherapy, 1959, 1, 51-57. The way to do is to be. Reviewof Rollo May,et a/., Existence: .4 New Dimension in Psychiatry and Psychology, in ContemporaryPsychology, 1959, 4, 196-198. Commentson cases in S. Standal and R. Corsini (Eds.), Critical Incidents in Psychotherapy. NewYork: Prentice-Haft, 1959. Lessons I have learned in counseling with individuals. In W. E. Dugan (Ed.), ModernSchool Practices Series 3, Counseling Points of Vieqa. University of Minnesota Press, 1959, 14-26. With G. Marian Kinget. Psycbotberapie en Menselyke Varhoudingen. Utrecht: Uitgeveri i Hot Spectrum, 1959, 302 pp. With M. Lewis and J. Shlien. Twocases of time-limited client-centered psychotherapy. In A. Burton (Ed.), Case Studies of Counseling and Psychotherapy. Prentice-Hall, 1959, 309-352. 1960 Psychotherapy: The Counselor, and Psychotherapy: The Client. 16 ram. motion pictures with sound. Distributed by Bureau of Audio-Vianal Aids, University of Wisconsin, 1960. Significant trends in the orient-centered orientation. In D. Brower, and L. E. Abt (Eds.), Progress in Clinical Psychology, Vol. IV’. Ne"~ York: Grune & Stratton, 1960, 85-99. With A. Walker, and R. Rablen. Developmentof a scale to measazr¢ process changes in psychotherapy. ]. Clinical Psychal., 1960, 16~ 7985. 411 1961 (to May1) Twodivergent trends. In Rono May(Ed.), Existential Psychology. NewYork: RandomHouse, 1961, 85-93. The process equation of psychotherapy. ~liner. ]. Psychotherapy, 1961, lY, 27-45. A. theory of psychotherapy with schizophrenics and a proposal for its empirical investigation. In J. G. Dawson,H. K. Stone, and N. P. Delfts (Eds.), Psychotherapy ,with Scloizopbrenics. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1961, 3-19. In Press Towardbecoming a fully functioning person. In A. W. Combs(Ed.), 1962 Yearbook, Amer. Soc. for Curriculum Development. (In press) Acknowledgments Chapter 1, "This is Me," copyright © 1961 by Carl R. Rogers. Chapter 2, "SomeHypothesesRegarding the Facilitation of Personal Growth," copyright 1954 by Board of Trustees of Oberlin College. Published in pamphlet, "Becominga person." Chapter 3, "The Characteristics of a Helping Relationship," copyright 1958 by Personnel and GuidanceJournal. Published as "Characteristics of a helping relationship," 1958, 37, 6-16. Chapter 4, "WhatWeKnowAboutPsychotherapy--Objectively and Subjectively," copyright © 1961 by Carl R. Roger~ Chapter 5, "Someof the Directions Evident in Therapy," copyright 1953 by Ronald Press. Published as chapter 2, "Somedirections and end points in therapy," in O. H. Mowrer(Ed.), Psychotherapy: Theory and Research, pp. 44--68. Chapter 6, "What It Meansto Becomea Person," copyright 1954 by Board of Trustees of Oberlin College. Published in panlphlet, "Becominga person." Chapter 7, "A Process Conception of Psychotherapy," copyright 1958 by AmericanPsychological Association, Inc. Published under the same tide in the/lmerican Psychologist, volume 13, 142-149. Chapter 8, "To Be That Self "~Vhich One Truly Is: A Therapist’s View of Personal Goals," copyright 1960 by Pendle Hill Publications. Published as "A therapist’s vlew of personal goals," Pendle H/l/ Pamphlet #108. Chapter 9, "A Therapist’s View of the GoodLife: The Fully Functionhag Person," copyright 1957 by The Hu’a~nist, Humanist House, 413 414 Ac~o~Mz~m Yellow Springs, Ohio. Published as "A therapist’s view of the good life:’ volume 17, 291-300. Chapter I0, "Persons or Science? A Philosophical Question," copyright 1955 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. Published under same tide in the American psychologist, volume I0, 267-278. Chapter 11, "Personality Change in Psychotherapy:’ copyright 1955 by The lmernational ]onmal of Social Psychiatry. Published under same title in volume 1, 31-41. Chapter 12, "Client-Centered Therapy in Its Context of Research," copyright 1959 by Uitgeverij Her Specu’um, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Published as chapter 10 in Psychotberapie en Mensclyke Verhoudingen, by C. R. Rogers and G. M. Kinget. Chapter 13, "Personal Thoughts on Teaching and Learning," copyright 1957 by Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. Published under same title in volume 3, 241-243. Chapter 14, "Significant Learning: In Therapy and in Education," copyright 1959 by Educational Leadership. Published under same title in volume 16, 232-242. Chapter 15, "Student-Centered Teaching as Experienced by a Participant," copyright 1959 by Educational Leadership. Published under tide "Carl R. Rogers and nonditecfive teaching," volume 16, February’, 1959. Chapter 16, "The Implications of GHent-CenteredTherapy for Family Life," copyright © 1961 by Carl R. Rogers. Chapter 17, "Dealing with Breakdownsin Communication--Interpersonal and Intergroup," copyright 1952 by ETC:A Review of General Semantics. Published under tide "Communication:its blocking and facilitation" in volume 9, 83-88. Chapter 18, "A Tentative Formulation of a General Lawof Interpersonal Relationships," copyright © 1961 by Carl R. Rogers. Chapter 19, "Toward a Theory of Creativity," copyright 1954 by ETC: A Review of General Semantics. Published under same ride in voluxn¢ 11,249--260. Chapter 20, "The GrowingPowerof the Behavioral Sciences," copy’right © 1961 by Carl R. Rogers. Chapter 21, "The Place of the Individual in the NewWorld of the Behavioral Sciences,’ copyright © 1961 by Carl R. Rogers. Index Acceptance, 20, 54, 67, 82, 109, Betz, B. J., 57, 58 Block, Jack, 369, 38I 207, 805, 857, 375 definition of, 84 Block, Jeanne, 369, 381 Brady, J. V., ,’377, 382 of feelings, 151 "Brainwashing," {375 of others, 174 of self, 51, 63, 75, 207 Breese, F. H., 57 Actualizing tendency, 851 Buber, Martin, 55, 57, I!19 "Adjustmentscore," 235, 236 Butler, J. M., 225, 256, ’370 Adlerian psychotherapy, 266 California Institute of Teehnolugy, Aggression, 194 Alcoholics, therapy with, 40, 47 59, {364 AmericanPsychological Associa- Cameron, D. E., 374, 381 Carinvright, D. S., 158, 225, 244, tion, 125, 363 Aseh, S. E., 872, 381° 267, 270 Attitudes: Choice: of the helping person, 50 effective, 154 W~ts~)chotherapy (See also Free ’ of the therapist, 63, 74, 84 personal, 203 parental, 41, 42, 43 positive, 52, 65, 75 Client-centered Autonomicfunction in relation to 226, 246 therapy, 251-253, 267 characteristics of, 75, 184 client-Centered Therapy (Rogers), Awareness, 104-105 emergence of feelings into, 78 4, 26 Axline, V. M., 242 Clinical Treatment of the Problem Child (Rogers), 13, Baldwin, A. L., 41, 57 Coch, L., 370, 381 Barrctt-Lennard, G. T., 263, 269 Communication,75, 132, 148, 157 Becoming, process of, 55 barriers to, 3{30-831 from others. 19 Beicr, E. G., 371, 381 improvementin. 823, 582-880 Bergman,D. V., 253, 270 interJ)al. 142, 154. 155 Berlin. J. I., 267 °--re/~ltion of congruence to, 34 Bertalanffy, L. yon, 870, 381 {345 Beston, W. H., 381 ¯ Italicized numbers indicate a bibliographic referenCe. 415 416 Communication (cont.) theory, 127 Conditioning, operant, 45 Conformity, 169, 348 Congruence: definition of, 81-62, 282-283, 389-342 in the client, 64, 157 in the counselor, 48, 49, 50, 51, 61, 264 Continuum,of therapeutic change, 131 Contradictions in experience, 134, 136, 138, 142 Control, of behavior, 378, 879, 384, 387-391, 398-399 Control group, 230-231 Counseling Center, University of Chicago, 82, 107, 199, 225, 226, 267 Counseling and Psychotherapy (Rogers), Countertransference, 82 Creative process, definition of, 350 Creativity, 193, 347-359 motivation for, 350-851 Cratchfield, R. S., 372, 381 Curran, C. A., 242 INol~Z Evaluation (cont.) locus of, 248, 354 Evil, 177 Examinations, 290 Existential living, 188-189 Experience: as a criterion, 23 being one’s, 103-105 of therapy, 66-69, 201-203 openness to, 115-117, 119, 173, 187, 353 Experiencing, 64, 65, 80 in psychotherapy, 68, 90, 104, 111, 134, 136, 137, 140, 143, 147, 149, 151, 156--157, 201 of the self, 76 with immediacy, 145--146, 150 Extensinnality, 853 Eysenek, H. J., 229, 231, 242 Facade, defensive, 108-111, 113114, 167-168 Family life, 314-328 Farson, R. E., 53, 57 Faw, V., 295 Feeling: experiencing of, 111-113 expression of, 315-318 Feelings and personal meanings, Defensiveness, 115, 187, 188 64, 182, 184, 135, 130, 188 Dewey, J., 398 139, 142, 155, 156 Diplomacy, international, 178-180 positive, 81, 82, 86 Dittes, J. E., 44, 54, 57 Fels Institute, 41 Dreikurs, R., 266 Fiedler, F. E., 57, 295 Dymond,R. F., 225, 242, 258, 270, Fiske, D., 267 382 Fixity, 131, 132, 156, 158, 17{ 185 Emotional Maturity Scale, 259-260 Fluidity, 188 Ends, E. ]., 46, 57 "Free will," 192--193, 210, 389Equation of therapy, 66 390 Ethics, in relation to science, 214 Freedom: Evaluation: in the relationship, 34, 53, 109 as barrier to eommunicatian, 185 380--381 psychological, 358, 380 external, 23, 54, 55, 62, 357 versus determinism, 192 internal, 119, 354 French, ]. R. P., 370, 381 417 IlqDgl Freud, S., 91 Fully functioning person, concept of the, 183, 184, 191 Janis, I., 382 John, E. S., 225 Kagan, J., 382 C, endlin, E., 128, 133, 150, 158, Kalhorn, J., 57 267 Katz, D., 370, 382 Kell, B. L., 221 General systems theory, 127 Gemuineness, 48, 49, 185, 875; see Kelly, G. A., 132, 158 Kierkegaard, S., 110, 166, 172, a/so Congruence 181, 182, 199, 205, 276 Goals: Kilpatriek, W. H., 9, 298, 303 for society, 178-180, 887 Kinget, G. M., 243 of science, 891-898 Kirtner, W. L., 128, 135, 155, 158, personal, 164-181 267 GoddardCollege, 279 K/ein, G. S., 373, 383 C_,ood life, concept of, 184--196 Knowledge,scientific, 216 definition, 187 Gordon, T., 225, 371, 381 Learning: Cough, H. E., 381 in education, 275--278, 280-290 Greenfield, N. S., 267 in psychotherapy, 86, 203-205, Greenspoon,J., 45, 58 280 Grummon, D. L., 225 Lcamingtheory, therapy based on, Ha~gh, G. v., 225, 250, 270 47, 127 Lcavitt, H. J., 307, 383 Haire, M., 382 Halkides, G., 47, 48, 58 Lemer, M., 295 Lewis, M. K., 158 Harlow, H. F., 46, 58 Lindsley, O. R., 45, 55, 58 Harvard University, 273 Lipgar, R. M., 215 Hayakawa,S. I., 333 Listening, 331-836 Healy, W., 10 to one’s self, 17, 63 Hebb, D. O., 229, 231, 242 Heine, R. W., 43, 58 Maceoby,N., 370, 382 Heron, W., 381 McGiffert, A. C., 8 Hess, E. H., 376, 382 McGill University, 374 Hinkle, L. E., 375, 382 Hollingworth, L., 9 McNeil, H., 221 Maslow,A. H., 91, 106, 174, 182 Hunt, H. F., 377, 382 Maturity, psychological, 56 Huxley, A., 214, 386, 40l study of, 258-263 Measurement of psychotherapy, Insight, 75 206-207 Institute for child Guidance, 9, 32 Intensity, matching of emotSonal, Meehl, P. E., 368, 382 Meerleo, J. A. M., 396. 401 48 Monkeys,experiments with, 46 Iowa studies, 220 Montagu,A.. 91, 106 Mooney, R. L., 129, 159. 215 Jackson, J. H., 295 Morris, C. W., 16,5-166, .182 Jacob, P. E., 109, 182 lrnnm 418 Morse, N. C., 370, 382 Motivation for change, 35, 285 Moustakas, C., 288, 295 Movement,in therapy, 130, 167181 Mussun, P. H., 382 Nagle, B. F., 370, 382 Nature of man, 90-106, 19,/-195 Niebuhr, R., 401 Northwestern University. 829 Oak, ease of Mrs., 77 -10S Oberlin Col]~ge, J07 Ohio State University, 13, 247, °047 Olds, ]., 378, 382 Openness, 21; see a/so Experiance, openness to Oppenheimer, R., 379, 382, 396, 401 Orwdl, G., 386, 401 OutcomeSof therapy, 36, 65, 280 studies of, 220-241, 248-250, 251-258, 256-258, 258--263 Page, C. W., 58 Perception: of reality, 65 of the relationship, 50 of self, 75 of the therapist, 44, 67 Personal constructs, 1S2, 134, 136, 138, 141, 144, 148, 153, 154, 157 Personality, change in, 62, 66, 75, 92, 225-241 Peterson, D. R., 381 Physiological concomitants of psychotherapy, 147-148 Popper, K. R., 899, 401 Power, $88 Prediction of behavior, 366--880 Problems: as a condition of learning, 282, 28(} Problems(cont.) client’s relationship to, 132, 183, 150, 157 Process: as a personal characteristic, 27, 122, 171, 186 of therapy, 126-158 Psychogalvanie reflex, 44, 54 Psychotherapy: changeSin, 80, 226-241 dements of, 103, 115--123 essence of, 201-205 process of, 74-106, 126-158 stages of, 132-158 Q technique, 207, 244 description of, 87, 282--233, 2,56 Qutma, R. D., 44, 58 Rank, Otto, 32 Raskin, N. J., 244, 248, 270, 382 Rather, J., 401 Realism, i03 Reality: in relationship to subjective ezperience, 209 in the client, 111 in the relationship, 33 Receive, psychologically, 130-181, 133, 151 Regard, level of, 203 positive, 52, 843 Rdationship, $8-85, 56, 66 affectinnal, 80, 86 changes in, 75, 157-158 consequences of a, 86--88 creation of, 50-56 definition of, 89, 40 elements of, 43--44, 202 family, 318--323 helping, 39-57 interpersonal, 838-346 "manufactured," 45-46 purpose of, 40 Relationship Inventory, 268--264 419 ]:~e~e3Ech: criteria for, 227 description of, 14 design, 227-232 in client-centered therapy, 244269 in the behavioral sciences, 8135878 Respect, 74, 82 Responsibility, for self, 188, 188, 142 1Richard, J., 871, 382 Rockefeller Foundation, 225 Rodgers, D. A., 215 Roessler, R., 267 Rogers, C. R., 57, 58, 106, 158, 159, 242, 258, 267, 270, 295, 296, 346, 382, 401 Rudikoff, E. C., 225 Science: behavioral, 364-878 description of, 215-224 purpose in, 891--~92 values in, 891--895 Scott, T. H., 381 Seeman,J., 44, 58, 182, 225, 244, 270, 382 Self, 75, 80, 97, 99, 100, 103, 108124, 135, 153 acceptance of, 87-90, 207 changes in, 232-240 concept, study of, 256-258 experiencing of, 76 perception of, 232 as comparedwith diagnosis, 237-289 Self-direction, 170-171 Separateness, 52, 825, 856 Shlien, J., 143, 158, 266 Skinner. B. F., 45, 55, 214, 294, 296, 863, 377, 382, 383, 885, 887, 401, 402 Smith, G. J. W., 373, 383 Snyder, W. U., 242 Socialization, 85, 91, I08, 106, 194, 348 Spence, D. P., 378, 383 Spence, K. W., 217 Standal, S., 283, 298 Stasis, 131 Stephenson, W. U., 207, 232, 242, 256, 270 Stevens, S. S., 211 Streich, E., 215 Subception, 188 Subjectivity, 202, 205 Symbolization, 130 Taft, R., 383 Teachers’ College, Columbia University, 9, 32 Teaching, 273-278 student-centered, 286-295 reaction to, 299-~10 Techniques of therapy, study of, 253-255 Tenenbatma,S., 297, 299, 310 Tension, 65 between groups, 3~4-~85 Thematic Apperception Test, 238, 257 Therapy; see psychotherapy Thefford, W. N., 251, 270, 383 Threat, psychological, 44, 54 Tougas, R. R., 225 Transference, 82 Trust: in one’s orgar6sm, 102-105, 122, 189 in self, 22, 118, 122, 175 in therapist, 67 of humannature, 194 Unconditional positive regard, 47, 48. 49, 63. 66. 185. 2S3 definition of, 62, 289-284 measure of, 264 Understamtixlg, 18, 44, 53 definition of, 284 42O Understanding (co*~.) empathic, 34, 47, 48, 49, 53, 62, ~, 185, 268, 848, 844, 358, 375 in science, 205 Um~Theological Seminary, 8 Values, in rdafic~a to science, 391806 Vargas, M. J., 225 VerphnckW. S., 4S, ~, 58 Whitehom,J. C., 42, 57~ 58 Whyte, W. H., Jr., 169, 182, 383, 385, 402 williams, $. B., 367, 383 Wisconsin, University of, 6, 26"1 Wol~, H. G., 375, 382 Wooster College, 163 Zi~.ing, F., 128. 133, 158 2252 DATA Mod. 0~’03’t29 ......... ~/j~f~÷-’~- DE ENTREGA " 200x50~ ~ ~. ~ ~- ~ _ - ~ ~ ...... DEDALUS - Acervo - IP l=,fr/~l’Ii~ li’*, ~,r f’~r ’i !,’T rl’rl r l,"~!r laJl,=, JIJ, : Jj,.j,j~,I’ J ~i J, JIJ i I~lJ’~ll 12300023940 J